through his enjoyment of the proceeds. Adopting this approach would go too far, potentially extending the offense of bank fraud indefinitely. No doubt,- the vast majority of bank fraud schemes entail not only obtaining but also retaining the ill-gotten gains. But when the proceeds of a criminal venture are spent may not be viewed as part of a plan to defraud. See Anderson, 188 F.3d at 891. To rule otherwise and hold that failure to repay a fraudulently obtained bank loan constitutes conduct for the offense of bank fraud would extend the life of the offense so indefinitely as to render the ex post facto prohibition ineffective. The Supreme Court has cautioned against such a result in other contexts. See Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 402, 77 S.Ct. 963, 1 L.Ed.2d 931 (1957) (<HOLDING>). Kilkenny’s M & T bank fraud scheme was
holding that two conspiracies existed where the members of the second conspiracy did not know about the first conspiracy did not benefit from the first conspiracy and were connected with the first conspiracy only through a middleman holding a conspiracy to conceal should not be inferred from acts of concealment because every conspiracy will inevitably be followed by actions taken to cover the conspirators traces and the opposite result would extend the life of a conspiracy indefinitely holding that once a defendant becomes associated with a conspiracy he is responsible for all of the acts of the conspiracy even those which occurred before or after his association with the conspiracy holding that the notion of enterprise conspiracy has largely rendered the old distinction between single conspiracy and multiple conspiracy irrelevant to rico conspiracy charges holding that in a conspiracy case venue lies where the conspiracy agreement was formed or in any jurisdiction where an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed by any of the conspirators