(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the affirmance of the judgment of conviction against Meltzer on Counts III-VI and in the reversal of the judgment of conviction against him on Counts VII and VIII. I dissent, respectfully, only from the reversal of the judgment of conviction against Glantz-man on Counts III-VIII by the majority on the ground that “the government failed to meet its burden establishing the elements of the crime by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”1 As this *203court has consistently held, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the Government on this issue. See United States v. Carlson, 359 F.2d 592, 597 (3d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Bonomo v. United States, 385 U.S. 879, 87 S.Ct. 161, 17 L.Ed.2d 106 (1966); United States v. Provenzano, 334 F.2d 678, 683-684 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 947, 85 S.Ct. 440, 13 L.Ed.2d 544 (1964).
Mark testified that most individuals applying to Glantzman’s sole proprietorship known as Foreign Employment Service (hereinafter F.E.S.), in order to be approved for permanent residence, were from the West Indies and had come to this country on visitors’ visas, using this language at N.T. 311-12:
“Q Now, did you ever discuss the fact that the majority of these people were here on a visitor’s visa with Mr. Glantzman ?
“A Oh, yes, yes. Well, the guidelines were laid down to me, you know, that these people would be mostly visitors, and that I should make it clear to them — I should make it clear to them that as visitors they were accepting employment at their own risk.
“Q What do you mean by that? “A Yes, that they would — that they were committing a breach of the immigration laws or regulations, something like that. They were committing a breach.
“Q Who instructed you ?
“A Oh, Mr. Glantzman made that quite clear.
“Q That you were to advise these people ?
“A Yes. I was to advise them.
“Q To that effect?
“A Yes.” 2
In addition to the testimony that under Glantzman’s instructions the 575 A forms were signed regularly by the aliens in blank and then filled in by the F.E.S. employees,3 even though they did not describe jobs which the alien could perform, Newman testified that he never signed the 575 A form submitted by F.E.S. on his behalf (N.T. 358, 359 & 366), and which was taken to the Department of Labor at Washington, D. C., by Glantzman to expedite its handling (N.T. 44-49). Furthermore, there is evidence that Newman told F.E.S. he was not working as an orderly but as a *204kitchen worker (N.T. 379, 380 & 388).4 Similarly, there is ample evidence from which the jury could find that F.E.S. and its sole proprietor, Glantzman, knew that Quamina was employed to work in the laundry or as a porter but not as an orderly (N.T. 217, 263, Exhibit 29 and N.T. 992).
Glantzman had the final say on policies at F.E.S. (N.T. 689, 780-81). He conceded that forms prepared in his office were prepared “in accordance with my direction and order” (N.T. 928) and that he established the operating procedures for F.E.S. (N.T. 887).
Under these circumstances, I believe this language of Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613, 619, 69 S.Ct. 766, 770, 93 L.Ed. 919 (1949), is applicable:
“* * * [T]here is circumstantial evidence wholly adequate to support the finding of the jury that Mon-charsh aided and abetted in the commission of those offenses. Thus there is evidence that he was the promoter of a long and persistent scheme * * *, that the making of false invoices was a part of that project, that the makers of the false invoices were Moncharsh’s subordinates, that -x- * * [he] was the chief owner of the business, that he was the manager of it, * * * that he had charge of the office where the invoices were made out.
“Those activities extended throughout the period when the substantive crimes were committed. * * *
“We see therefore no reason to exculpate him as an aider and abettor.”
Similarly, this language from this court’s decision in Provenzano, supra, seems applicable (334 F.2d at 692):
“In the instant case the evidence established Provenzano’s essential participation in a scheme. * * * There was sufficient evidence to connect Communale as well as Castellito with Provenzano in a violation of section 1951. Compare Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613, 619-620, 69 S.Ct. 766, 769, 770, 93 L.Ed. 919 (1949). * * * The jury was entitled to draw any reasonable inference from the evidence in favor of the United States and against Provenzano.” 5
. See, particularly, testimony of witnesses Bell (N.T. 44-112), Mark (N.T. 310-343), Quamina (N.T. 188 ff.), Newman (N.T. 345 ff.), Martin (N.T. 424 ff.), Gordon *203(N.T. 472 ff.), Butler (N.T. 659, 666 & 780), Glantzman (N.T. 861 ff.), Hill (N.T. 965, 987 ff.), and Meltzer (N.T. 1084 ff.).
. At pages 312 and 337 Mark testified:
“As I said, he made it clear to me that these people who came as visitors were not permitted to work, were not permitted to accept employment, and therefore I should make that very clear to them because the process was two-fold, one was that our service to them — the the agency’s service to them was twofold, one to find them a job, and secondly to put through their papers for the purpose of getting permanent residence.
* * * That is, we were going to seek a position for them but that the responsibility — that is, for accepting employment, was his, that is to say that he was doing it at his risk, as there was a breach involved.
“THE COURT: A breach of what?
“THE WITNESS : The Immigration Regulations on a visitor. I mean, he was a visitor and as such he was not permitted to accept employment.
“THE COURT: Did you tell the applicant?
“THE WITNESS: Oh, yes.
“THE COURT: That in getting him a job if he accepted the job it would be a violation of the Immigration laws?
“THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, it would be a violation.
“THE COURT: You told him that?
“THE WITNESS: Yes.”
See, also, testimony at N.T. 110 of Mr. Bell, Labor Department Supervisor reviewing applications for alien employment certifications that have been denied by regional offices.
. See N.T. 666, 871, 1086-87. This procedure was adopted even though the form specified that the signatory declared “that all statements [on it] were true, complete, and correct.” Meltzer testified that Glantzman initiated this procedure (N.T. 1086-87).
. Also, Martin testified to the same effect (see N.T. 451 and Exhibit 42).
. In United States v. Heithaus, 391 F.2d 810 (3d Cir. 1968), relied on by the majority, the defendant (Heithaus) was a co-owner, not a sole proprietor, and he did not take the forms on which the indictment was based to a government official urging that their approval be expedited. I believe that this record shows the defendant Glantzman had significantly more knowledge of the false statements on the government forms than the record in the foregoing case disclosed was available to Heithaus. See United States v. Heithaus (Selikoff, appellant), 377 F.2d 484 (3d Cir. 1967), where the judgment of conviction was affirmed.