the bank any greater security interest than it had before, and thus it did not dimmish the bankruptcy estate. Absent such diminution, the transfer had no preferential effect. See Pitman, 843 F.2d at 241-42; Biggers, 249 B.R. at 877-79. The fifth prerequisite to voidability, § 547(b)(5), was not satisfied. At oral argument, counsel for the trustee suggested that consideration of the 1996 mortgage effectively eliminates the statutory requirement of timely perfection. But, as we understand § 547(b), the timeliness of perfection of a transfer is indeed irrelevant if the transferee’s position is not improved. That is, if § 547(b)(5) is not satisfied, it makes no difference whether the transfer was on account of an antecedent debt — the transfer is not voidable. See Arnett, 731 F.2d at 360 (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, we conclude that the 2000
holding that a found in indictment need not allege all of the elements of entry holding in a case predating the amendment to article five section 12 that to be a valid charging instrument and to invoke the trial courts jurisdiction an indictment must allege all essential and constituent elements of the offenses sought to be charged holding that the creditor must prove the elements of actual fraud holding that all five elements of  547b must be met holding that guilty plea admits all elements of offense