no contention that either the sender or the recipient of the wire transfer is domiciled in Arizona. ¶ 35 The Supreme Court has expressly pretermitted whether in rem jurisdiction over intangibles not embodied in documents can be exercised in more than one state. See Hanson, 357 U.S. at 247, 78 S.Ct. 1228. We therefore need not decide today whether the wire transfers are present for constitutional purposes in more than one locale. It might well be reasonable under the circumstances of this case to consider the seized funds as present in the state from which they were sent until they are collected. It might also be reasonable to view the funds as located in Colorado, Western Union’s state of incorporation. Cf. Delaware v. New York, 507 U.S. 490, 494, 113 S.Ct. 1550, 123 L.Ed.2d 211 (1993) (<HOLDING>); Pennsylvania v. New York, 407 U.S. 206, 212,
holding that claims that debtor fraudulently induced claimants to retain debtors securities arise from the purchase or sale of those securities holding that debtor cannot take advantage of  522f after debtor has transferred his exempt property holding that when owner of unclaimed securities distributions cannot be found state of domicile of debtor has priority in escheat proceedings holding that a wifes interest in property has priority over a general creditor holding that claims alleging that the debtor fraudulently induced the claimants to retain securities they had purchased from the debtor arise from the purchase or sale of those securities for purposes of  510b