United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

“ Kent had opined to attorney David Gibbs that he was “smarter” than other church officials who had forfeited real property after they refused to collect or pay withholding taxes. Although Kent argued at trial that he was ignorant of the law and the Revenue Service failed to identify a law that required him to collect and pay withholding taxes, the jury was entitled to find that Kent knew about and deliberately violated the tax laws. See United States v. Lankford, 955 F.2d 1545, 1550 (11th Cir. 1992) . 2. The Hovinds Structured Transactions To Avoid Reporting Requirements. ”

“ United States v. White, 27 F.3d 1531, 1538 (11th Cir. 1990) . Prejudice exists only if the defendant establishes that the modification of the instruction was substantial and repudiated or rendered ineffective his arguments. Id.
The Hovinds were not prejudiced by the change to the jury instruction. The district court did not substantially modify the instruction on structuring. In his closing argument, Kent Hovind used the original jury instruction in a manner that suggested that the government was required to prove that structuring required a cash transaction that equaled or exceeded $10,000. ”

“ A former employee of Evangelism Enterprises, Brian Popp, testified that Kent knew of and complained about the bank reporting requirements and that Jo, often at Kent’s direction, regularly obtained cash to pay employees of the organization. ”

“ We review de novo the legality of the orders of restitution and of forfeiture. United States v. Foley, 508 F.3d 627, 632 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. Hasson, 333 F.3d 1264, 1275 (11th Cir. 2003) ) .
III. DISCUSSION
Kent and Jo Hovind raise multiple issues for our consideration. Their arguments fail. We address each argument in turn. A. The Hovinds Indictments Were Sufficient.
It is a well-established principle that “‘ [t] he sufficiency of a criminal indictment is determined from its face.’” United States v. ”