Whether a 'no ultimate harm' instruction in a securities fraud prosecution causes prejudicial jury confusion by effectively holding the accused to a higher standard of conduct than the statute specifically requires, thereby unduly undermining a defense of good faith?

question presented is whether a “no ultimate harm” instruction in a securities fraud prosecution causes prejudicial jury confusion by effectively holding the accused to a higher standard of conduct than the statute specifically requires, thereby unduly undermining a defense of good faith? 2. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(2)(B), should the proceeds from defrauded investors be offset by those gains they later realize, as amounting to direct costs which a defendant “incurred in providing the goods or services,” before any forfeitable profits by such defendant can be calculated?