adjudication adverse to such Insured” establishing deliberately fraudulent or deliberately dishonest acts, omissions, or purposeful violations. Gulf Policy, § 4.1.1 (emphasis added). The policy speaks nothing of exhaustion of appellate review. The conviction, sentence, and judgment rendered by this court against Poulsen was a final judgment that imposed criminal penalties upon him. See Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 212, 58 S.Ct. 164, 82 L.Ed. 204 (1937) (“Final judgment in a criminal case means sentence.”). Other cases addressing this issue — though admittedly not Ohio cases — have held that insurance coverage is excluded when there is a criminal conviction establishing fraud or dishonesty. See, e.g., Pacific Ins. Co. v. General Dev. Corp., 28 F.3d 1093, 1096 (11th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); U.S. v. Weissman, No. S294-cr-760, 1997 WL
holding that evidence tending to show knowing participation in the conspiracy is sufficient to sustain conspiracy conviction holding that the judgment language of an insurance policys dishonesty exclusion was satisfied by a conviction of fraud and conspiracy holding that a suicide exclusion regulates insurance and therefore falls within the insurance savings clause holding that a sexual assault on a youth homes resident was excluded from an insurance policys coverage by an assault and battery exclusion notwithstanding that the claim was couched in negligence holding that an insurers duty to defend pursuant to an insurance contract arises whenever the complaint filed by the injured party may potentially come within the policys coverage