Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining a wire-fraud-conspiracy conviction where the rights and obligations between the petitioner and investors were codified in written contracts, the investors were accredited and represented by advisors, the expenditures were authorized, and there was no evidence of a Ponzi scheme or fraudulent accounting

QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred, as a matter : of law, in sustaining a conviction for wire fraud ; conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. §1349 (in Count One of the Indictment) and convictions for wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§1343 and 2 (Gn Count Two) in : a case where: (a) the rights and obligations oe ; between the Petitioner and the investor/“victims” were codified in written contracts that incorporated longstanding corporate governance documents, pre-existing operating agreements, . and a related-offering memorandum; (b) the : . “victims” were “accredited investors” who were , wo represented in their investment transactions by ; financial advisors and/or lawyers of their choice; , (c) the “victims” agreed in writing to honor all of the terms and conditions set forth in the applicable corporate governance documents, which were promulgated and adopted by ; Petitioner’s corporate predecessors; (d) every category of expenditures cited by the government : as “fraudulent” or “personal” was expressly authorized in the governing operating agreements to which the “victims” agreed to be bound; (e) the “risk factors” related to these investments were disclosed to the “victims” and acknowledged in their purchase agreements; (f) the businesses in which the “victims” invested ii ; were ongoing business enterprises at the time of _ their investment and the Indictment; (g) forward-looking statements in the transactional ; documents and follow-on stakeholder reports were qualified by words like “expect,” “may,” and . “believe;” (h) there was no evidence that , ; Petitioner precluded, limited, or hindered the “victims” from conducting due diligence prior to or after their investments; (i) there was no allegation or evidence that Petitioner engaged in a “Ponzi” scheme, or fraudulent financial accounting practices, or that the defendants : failed to grow the businesses in question, and (j) ; alleged co-conspirator (Donald V. Watkins, Jr.) merely provided non-executive administrative and bookkeeping services for the businesses involved in this case? ;