dissenting:
In yet another sad chapter in the saga concerning the misuse and abuse — some might justifiably say looting — of the savings and loan industry in Texas in the 1980’s, we are faced principally with a straightforward, easy-to-resolve issue springing from a jury’s guilty verdicts. We are not required to resolve, for example, whether the jury was instructed correctly on the various intertwined charges; no one claims it was not. Instead, the primary issue before us is a simple one, insofar as legal principles and our standard of review are concerned: sufficiency of the evidence.1 The majority describes correctly our deferential standard of review for such a challenge: a jury’s guilty verdict must be sustained if, “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (citation omitted; emphasis in original).
This standard is grounded in the common sense, legally — indeed, constitutionally— blessed idea that jurors who heard the testimony, examined the documentary evidence, judged the credibility of the witnesses, and participated in the other events that comprise a criminal jury trial are to be accorded great deference in their verdict. For this reason, “[i]t is not necessary that the evi*984dence exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence or be wholly inconsistent with every conclusion except that of guilt”. United States v. Bell, 678 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir.1982) (en banc), aff'd on other grounds, 462 U.S. 356, 103 S.Ct. 2398, 76 L.Ed.2d 638 (1983). “Juries are free to use their common sense and apply common knowledge, observation, and experience gained in the ordinary affairs of life when giving effect to the inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence.” United States v. Heath, 970 F.2d 1397, 1402 (5th Cir.1992) (citations omitted), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1643, 123 L.Ed.2d 265 (1993). Accordingly, “[a]ll reasonable inferences from the evidence must be construed in favor of the jury verdict.” United States v. Martinez, 975 F.2d 159, 161 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1346, 122 L.Ed.2d 728 (1993) (citation omitted). In sum, “[t]his standard [of review] is a strict one and a jury verdict will not be overturned lightly.” United States v. Frayer, 9 F.3d 1367, 1371 (8th Cir.1993) (citation omitted).
It is well to remember that whether criminal intent exists is a classic jury question. E.g., United States v. Toro, 840 F.2d 1221, 1231 (5th Cir.1988) (‘Whether the defendant had the criminal intent required for conviction is a jury issue....”) On appeal, we have only the cold record and briefs before us. Obviously, appellate review serves a critical function in the criminal justice process. But, we sit primarily to correct errors of law. When we begin sifting through the facts, taking over the jury’s function, we begin generally to tread on thin ice. This is especially true for a case such as this, where the scheme at issue would be carefully and skillfully concealed in order to extricate Shamrock Savings from its “rapidly deteriorating” situation resulting from foreclosing on property (Tanglewood) “secur[ing] a loan accounting for more than seventy percent of [its] total capital”. Maj. Op. at 975.
It is for this reason that the sufficiency standard presents such a high hurdle — one that neither Beuttenmuller nor Gill has cleared. Only by improperly substituting itself for the jury can the majority reach the conclusion that it does. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
I.
I principally part company with the majority’s view that the Tanglewood/Mansfield exchange was “value for value”. The evidence was more than sufficient for the jury to conclude otherwise, which it did. The majority aptly describes the separate crises facing Shamrock (original Tanglewood owner) on the one hand, and Gill and Billings (original Mansfield owner) on the other:
Following foreclosure, the Tanglewood property was accounted for as “real estate owned,” or “REO,” on the balance sheet of Shamrock Savings. Not surprisingly, such a large amount of REO caused an accounting problem for Shamrock Savings. If the Tanglewood property remained classified as REO at the end of the fiscal year, which would close on September 30, Shamrock Savings would be required to create on its balance sheet a substantial reserve against capital. Consequently, Shamrock Savings began looking for a buyer for the Tangle-wood property in order to reduce the value of the REO account....
Meanwhile, two investors previously unconnected with Shamrock Savings, Larry Gill and Richard Billings, were experiencing their own financial difficulties. Gill and Billings were investors who formed a joint venture, known as the Mansfield 150 Joint Venture, to manage and develop approximately 155 acres of vacant agricultural land in Mansfield, Texas.... The Mansfield property was encumbered by several deeds of trust, securing in excess of $2,220,000 in mortgage and related debt. Gill and Billings were personally liable for a substantial portion of this debt, and, because the property itself generated no income, Gill and Billings were required to make interest and principal payments from personal resources.
During the summer of 1986, Gill and Billings were seeking an investor or lender to relieve them of the Mansfield property’s crushing debt....
Maj. Op. at 975 (footnote omitted). What the majority should also note is that Gill’s and *985Billings’ search for “an investor or lender” was a desperate one.
A.
As for Beuttenmuller’s conviction for conspiracy to commit an offense or defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 871, the majority states accurately that the transaction at issue was “ ‘backed into’ to provide sufficient cash to complete the sale of the Tanglewood property.” Maj. Op. at 976 n. 4. In other words, it was structured so that at the end of the day, a 20 percent down payment ($555,000) could be shown as having been made on the Tanglewood property. The majority notes the critical point: a 20 percent down payment was “necessary to allow Shamrock Savings to record a sale of the Tanglewood property.” Id. at 976 n. 4 (emphasis added).
Indeed it was. While Shamrock would be free to remove non-income producing REO from its books through a sale and financing, it could not be deemed to have “sold” the REO absent the 20 percent down payment. Savings and loans were obligated to prepare “financial statements and reports ... on the basis of generally accepted accounting principles” for federal regulators. See 12 C.F.R. § 568.23-3 (1986). And, Kirk Tennant, a lecturer in accounting at Southern Methodist University, testified that such principles would determine whether REO was actually sold. More specifically, he testified that the Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 66 (which he characterized as a generally accepted accounting principle applicable to savings and loans) controlled. According to Tennant, that statement, which “was promulgated ... to [ejnsure that entities do not record excess profits on the sale of real estate”, requires that a 20 to 25 percent down payment be made on property like Tanglewood to qualify as a valid sale.
Along that line, Shamrock’s former chief financial officer, one of Gill’s witnesses, testified that Shamrock had to have the 20 percent down payment in order to show a sale of the REO and thus book a profit. Likewise, Lane testified that a $555,000 down payment had to be made by the end of the fiscal year (September 30, 1986, the date of the closings on the transactions) to allow the accountants to remove Tanglewood from REO. Finally, one • of Beuttenmuller’s witnesses testified that independent auditors would not allow a “cash-for-trash” transaction to be reported as a profit on a savings and loan’s books if they were aware of the true nature of the transaction.
The evidence is sufficient for a rational jury to find that the entire transaction was structured so that Shamrock could send its cash out to be “lightly laundered” through Billings and Gill, and then returned to Shamrock as the requisite down payment on the Tanglewood REO.2 Given that the transaction was “backed into”, so that $555,000 could leave Shamrock’s wholly-owned subsidiary and return to Shamrock under the guise of a “down payment” by the new joint venture, a jury could also reasonably find that Billings and Gill were “straw men”, funnelling Shamrock’s own cash into a down payment on its own REO.
A number of facts support these findings. Billings testified (pursuant to a grant of im*986munity by the government) that he and Gill had no interest in buying Tanglewood; indeed, they had no financial resources whatsoever.3 Billings described the quid pro quo of the transaction: “[f|or them [Shamrock] to buy into our partnership we had [to] buy [Tanglewood].” And, so far as Lane was concerned, he didn’t “think they [Billings and Gill] made a down payment”, a thought consistent with the notion that Billings and Gill were merely conduits (or the laundry) for Shamrock funds. Indeed, Lane stated that the entire purpose of the transaction “was to sell REO”, and that the figures arrived at for the transaction were driven by the need to secure the 20 percent down payment on Tan-glewood. In other words, the transaction bore no relationship to market prices, which is the conclusion also reached by expert witness Tennant. Gill testified that the total amount he received for the Mansfield Joint Venture was $50,000 less expenses; obviously, Gill did not view the $555,000 that moved in a circle as having ever been his profit on the Mansfield sale. Likewise, Billings stated that he understood that he was getting $50,-000 for the Mansfield property.
The primary purpose of the transaction is highlighted by the curious maneuvering regarding Franks’ fee and where Billings’ so-called “equity payment” would come from. At the last minute, as the majority notes, Franks insisted that his fee be increased from $50,000 to $100,000. (The record does not reveal why Franks was able to demand, and receive, a 100 percent increase in his finder’s fee; of course, the jury might well have drawn a reasonable inference concerning Franks’ awareness of the fundamental purpose of the transaction — as well as the awareness of the parties who allowed him what he demanded.4) If the additional $50,-000 were deducted from the Mansfield side of the transaction, from which Franks was already set to receive the original $50,000, and assuming the equity payments were still disbursed as planned to Billings and Gill ($50,-000 each), there would not have been enough cash to make the requisite 20 percent down payment. So, Beuttenmuller suggested that Billings get his money as a “commission” on the sale of the Tanglewood property. In this manner, the $50,000 was paid out of the proceeds of the “down payment” made to Shamrock.5
The majority emphasizes the appraised value of the Mansfield property as justification for the exchange being “value-for-value”. In fact, the majority states that “[t]he only evidence in this record concerning the dollar value of the Mansfield property demonstrates that, at the time of the transaction, the property had an appraised value of at least $4 million.” Maj. Op. at 980 (emphasis in original); see also id. at 976 n. 5; 980 n. 17. But, the proof cast doubt on this statement.
The majority derives its figure from the testimony of Kelly Miller, who did the Mansfield appraisal in 1986. Apparently, the majority has taken his appraisal — slightly over *987$7 million — and reduced that amount by one of Miller’s estimates regarding how much investment was needed to fully develop the property (an assumption of his appraisal). See Maj. Op. at 976 n. 5. From this, the majority states that “[bjecause we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we will assume that the property had a net appraised value of $4 million.” Maj. Op. 976 n. 5.
But, the record demonstrates the generousness of the majority’s assumption:
BY [Beuttenmuller’s lawyer]:
Q. And you said it would take as such 2,000,000 to get it to that [$7,128,000] level?
A. As I said, that’s a guess.
Q. I understand that’s a guess.
A. / have no calculation for that We weren’t supplied, any engineering cost.
Q. Could take a million?
A. Could take that. I’m almost sure it would take almost that.
Q. Somewhere between a million and
2,000,000?
A. I would say depends on how it’s developed finally and at what stage it’s being sold.
BY [DOJ lawyer]:
Q: Mr. Miller, with respect to how much it would take to develop it, you testified it could take a million. Could it as easily take $8,000,000?
A. I’m having to guess. I’m sorry. It could take three.
Q. Sir? It could?
A. I have no way of knowing that without running that kind of a calculation.
(Emphasis added). (This appraised value did not consider the $2.2 million in debt attached to the property.)
The jury may have decided, again most reasonably, that Miller’s appraisal was more than speculative. As discussed, his appraisal assumed that the property was fully developed as a residential subdivision, and that demand for the fully-developed Mansfield property — two years out — would be comparable to that of other residential subdivisions, i.e., “comparables” (in 1986). This assumed a great deal, to say the least. As Miller testified, the Mansfield property was nothing more than a “hay field”. It had no curbs, gutters, water lines, or sewer lines. And, as was made clear earlier, Miller had no real idea what it would cost to develop (or market) the property.6 (In addition, although not expressly elicited before the jury, Miller did not reduce his appraisal to a present value.)7
In the face of this speculative appraisal, the jury had other, solid evidence from which it could value the Mansfield property — evidence the majority apparently rejects in favor of its reading of Miller’s appraisal. As noted, Billings and Gill had paid only approximately $2 million for the property about a year before the transaction. Keeping in mind the tried and true maxim that property is worth only what a buyer is willing to pay for it, the jury could infer that the property was worth significantly less than the appraised value.8 As noted, Billings and Gill *988were desperately “seeking an investor or lender to relieve them of the Mansfield property’s crushing debt.” Maj. Op. at 975. Actually, Billings and Gill were quite anxious to find a purchaser for the property; they had put together marketing materials and contacted some 50 people in the real estate business in an effort to sell Mansfield. But, they “didn’t have any buyers”; and, in assessing the marketability of Mansfield, Billings testified that it was negligible, explaining that “the real estate market had definitely gone in the toilet.”9 They were seeking an investor or partner only because of the absence of parties interested in an outright purchase of Mansfield.
In addition to the evidence discussed above, expert witness Tennant testified that the transaction was circular and would not occur in the normal course of business. He stated that the transaction was not the product of a situation in which “the agreed upon prices ... would have come about through the market mechanisms....” When asked, he stated that the appraisals did not alter this opinion. And, he gave the jury information suggesting that a genuine sale was the only means of actually ascertaining the value of property (even if a jury must be told this). Put bluntly, as Billings did at trial, the $753,-000 figure “had no relationship whatever” to the value of the Mansfield property.
Considering that the property had sold a year earlier for about $2 million, and that about $2.2 million in debt was attached to it, and further considering that the real estate market had “gone in the toilet” since the $2 million sale (and, as a consequence, Billings and Gill could not find a purchaser), a reasonable jury could infer, quite easily, that the property was essentially worthless.10 In sum, the jury could well infer that the alleged “purchase” price of Mansfield was suspicious by itself, even setting aside the ample, direct evidence that the “purchase” was “backed into”.
Nevertheless, it is well to remember that Shamrock gave Billings and Gill relatively little more than $550,000 on the condition that they immediately give $550,000 back as a “down payment”. They simply had no choice; to get some relief from their desperate condition relating to Mansfield, they had to take money from Shamrock’s left pocket, and return it to its right.11
In addition to relying on the speculative 1986 appraisal to justify its conclusion, the *989majority refers to a $4 million appraisal of Mansfield in 1989. It opines that although
this appraisal was-not part of the record at trial, ... the fact that the property was appraised at $4 million three years later in a declining real estate market verifies the record evidence concerning the value of the Mansfield transaction. We think that it verifies our conclusion, based only on the record evidence, that no juror could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the transaction in question was a cash for trash transaction.
Maj. Op. at 980 n. 17 (emphasis added).12
In utilizing evidence not presented to the jury to “verify” its reversal of a jury’s verdict for insufficient evidence, the majority accomplishes several things, not least of which is totally discarding our limited scope of review for a jury verdict. I am aware of no case that has utilized evidence outside of the record to reverse convictions for insufficiency of the evidence — or, as the majority puts it, to “verify” its reversal. Apparently, it does not trouble the majority that this appraisal was not rigorously tested in the guilt-innocence phase of the trial (where, for example, cross-examination regarding the appraisal might have occurred). The reference also illustrates that the majority is uncomfortable with the support from the record it has mustered to deem the jury’s verdict irrational; no more telling indication of the majority’s uncertainty can be imagined than its recourse to an appraisal made years after the transaction and not disclosed to the jury.
Moreover, there is no evidence to support the majority’s assertion that the real estate market was “declining” between September 1986 (the date of the transaction) and 1989. The only evidence of a declining real estate market relates to the market’s movement between the $2 million purchase and the transaction in issue.13 .
What the majority fails to accomplish in this unprecedented reference is what it no doubt sought, namely, support for its position. According to the majority, Shamrock Land invested $1.4 million in the property after its acquisition and before October 1988. Maj. Op. at 978. Any such investment that raised the value of the property would have to be subtracted from the appraisal to even begin to figure out what the property was worth three years earlier, prior to such investment. Also, the secured debt in 1986, $2.2 million, must be considered. Furthermore, one must discount the 1989 value to a 1986 present value (to have ownership of property in 1986 that will be worth $4 million in 1989 dollars is not to own property worth $4 million in 1986 dollars; inflation of the currency and opportunity costs associated with the time-value of money, ie., interest, must be considered). All told, the appraisal does not support the majority’s position.
Overall, the transaction comports precisely with one of Beuttenmuller’s own witness’ definition of a “cash-for-trash” deal: “giving somebody some money to buy something that you want to get rid of real bad.”14 Obvious*990ly, it was not permissible for a savings and loan to give cash to somebody to be used as a down payment on the purchase of its REO. And, the fact that other “value-for-value” transactions might have taken place (whether independent of the scheme, designed to compensate the straw men for their complicity, or done to cover-up the underlying transaction) is of no moment.15 A jury evaluating the evidence could conclude that the intent of the parties to the exchange was, at bottom, to allow Shamrock to remove REO by furnishing its own cash for the down payment; something it could not do.16
From the evidence adduced at trial, the majority simply draws different inferences than did the jury. But, we cannot substitute our inferences for the jurors’, unless those inferences were irrational. That, I respectfully submit, was not the case here; far from it.
B.
As for Beuttenmuller’s conviction for aiding and abetting the making of a false entry in the records of a financial institution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2(b), 1006, the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. The majority disposes of this claim because it finds nothing materially misleading about the representation in the Tanglewood binder that the $50,000 payment to Billings was a “commission” for his efforts in selling Tan-glewood, rather than the earlier agreed “equity payment” on the Mansfield property. Maj. Op. at 982-83. Again, I respectfully disagree.
When deciding whether a false statement is material, inquiry into the context in which the false statement is made may prove useful. Cf. United States v. Williams, 12 F.3d 452, 456 (5th Cir.1994) (in assessing materiality of false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1014, “the statements must be analyzed in the particular context in which they were made”) (footnote with citation omitted). Given Franks’ last-minute demand for an additional $50,000, and Shamrock’s desire to avoid bringing “additional cash to the closing table”, see Maj. Op. at 977, Shamrock, as discussed supra, could not pay Billings from the Mansfield side of the transaction and still have sufficient cash to make the requisite down payment on Tanglewood, the raison d’etre for the exchange. Thus, “Beuttenmul-ler suggested that Billings receive the $50,-000 ... as a real estate commission on the Tanglewood property” to be paid by Shamrock Savings sometime after the closing of both transactions. Maj. Op. at 977. Now, the $50,000 equity payment had to be made out of the Tanglewood transaction, and thus accounted for on its disbursement schedule. It was in this context that the false entry of Billing’s equity payment as a “commission” on the sale of Tanglewood was made. And, this false entry in the Tanglewood schedule had the capacity to mislead, and hence was material, because an accurate entry in the Tanglewood binder’s disbursement schedule of the payment as an equity payment for the Mansfield property might have alerted bank examiners to the existence of a tied transaction — thus exposing the “cash-for-trash” deal.
Without such a truthful entry, the Tangle-wood binder contained no reference to the Mansfield transaction; it omits to refer to the other half of what was allegedly a “single *991integrated exchange transaction”. Bank examiners would have examined the Tangle-wood binder; a former Shamrock corporate secretary and director testified as to what they might discover:
Q. Can you tell us what hints there are in the binder that at the same time this loan and sale took place a Shamrock affiliate made a $730,000 payment to Mr. Gill and Mr. Billings?
A. From the table of contents there is no indication.
Q. And with respect to this same document can you tell us what indications there are that the down payment on the sale of the Tanglewood property came from a Shamrock affiliate?
A. From this file nothing.
The jury could reasonably find that, had the Tanglewood binder instead reflected an “equity payment” of $50,000 to Billings on the Mansfield property, a regulator might have been alerted that another transaction was related to it. In this sense, the jury could reasonably conclude that the entry of the payment as a “commission” might have had a tendency to influence a government function by helping conceal from a bank examiner the existence of a tied transaction. And, by the majority’s own reckoning, this is all the government must prove. Maj. Op. at 982.
The majority neither denies the falsity of characterizing the equity payment to Billings on the Mansfield property as a brokerage commission on the sale of Tanglewood nor disputes the underlying facts. Rather, the majority opines that a bank examiner — or, perhaps, some other witness — was required to testify that the false entry “would adversely affect the function of a governmental agency”, or present evidence that “a regulator would have probed ... further or done [something] different if the ... payment ... had been labeled an equity payment”. Maj. Op. at 982-83.
The majority is correct that a bank regulator did not testify that the entry did or would affect a governmental agency’s function. Of course, a “misrepresentation need not have influenced the actions of the government agency, and the government agents need not have actually been deceived.” United States v. Swaim, 757 F.2d 1530, 1534 (5th Cir.) (quoting and citing United States v. Markham, 537 F.2d 187, 196 (5th Cir.1976) cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1041, 97 S.Ct. 739, 50 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977)) (both discussing 18 U.S.C. § 1001), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 825, 106 S.Ct. 81, 88 L.Ed.2d 66 (1985). To be material, a false statement “must simply have the capacity to impair or pervert the functioning of a government agency.” Cf. Swaim, 757 F.2d at 1534 (footnote and internal quotations omitted; discussing § 1001).
Surely, the false statement in issue had the capacity to impair government bank regulators. As discussed, the Tanglewood binder would have been examined by such regulators. Moreover, as the testimony of the former Shamrock corporate secretary and director makes clear, nothing in the Tangle-wood binder would alert an examiner that there was a tied transaction, i.e., Mansfield. If the false entry were not in the Tanglewood binder, and a truthful entry were made, i.e., “$50,000 to Rich Billings as equity payment for Mansfield property”, such an entry would — at the least — have a tendency to arouse an examiner’s suspicions.
In fact, Beuttenmuller’s own witnesses offered additional evidence supporting this. A former deputy savings and loan commissioner for Texas, who was called to state that he would not have a problem with characterizing the payment as a “commission”, admitted that if that characterization was designed to obscure a cash-for-trash deal, he would have a problem with it. Under cross-examination, he gave the following testimony when a hypothetical offered, by Beuttenmuller was altered by the prosecutor:
A. Are you saying that hypothetically Mr. Billings had participated in a cash-for-trash transaction at Shamrock Savings?
* * * * Hi
Q. Yes, sir.
A. That I’m to factor that into the situation?
Q. Yes, sir. And that he’s gotten the $50,000 as consideration for the cash-for-trash deal. Follow that?
A. No.
*992Q. Okay. The commission that is in [Beuttenmuller’s] hypothetical that you opined on was payment — part of his payment for doing the cash-for-trash deal. Follow that?
A. (Witness nods head.)
Q. And that payment doesn’t say anything about the other deal. It says it’s a commission just like any other commission paid to a broker. It’s not disclosed. Does that change your opinion, sir?
A. If you’re telling me that the commission was not really a commission, then I guess we would have to go back and look at what was it really for.
Q. But it gives you a problem, doesn’t it? A. It does.
(Emphasis added.)
Likewise, another of Beuttenmuller’s witnesses, a former member of the Texas finance commission, which was responsible for overseeing thrifts, emphasized the importance of full disclosure in closing documents. On cross-examination, he, too, expressed concern about the false entry:
Q. So given the hypothetical that [Beut-tenmuller] provided for you, what effect does — what effect on your answer does the following change in facts have? That the money paid to [Billings] is not a brokerage commission because he’s never seen the property. [Ra]ther the money is payment for another transaction having nothing to do other than the fact that — that the down payment is brought over? Does that change your opinion?
A. I’m sorry. You’re saying that—
Q. Let me shorten the question. I apologize. Does the fact that the — that the brokerage commission that’s reported, that’s disclosed, is money paid to him for doing something else having nothing to do with the property. Does that change your opinion?
A. Not necessarily, if it was part of the transaction. A commission may be one of many factors built into the structure of a deal, when the broker is a principal in the transaction.
Q. So long as it’s disclosed?
A. So long as it’s disclosed.
Q. And it’s not disclosed then what?
A. I understand it’s probably against the law.
Of course, not only did the disbursement not, on its face, disclose that Billings was a principal in the Tanglewood deal, but it completely failed to disclose the transaction for which the payment was really being made: the Mansfield transaction. This very transaction illustrates what this witness agreed was “correct”, namely, that, as a general proposition in the savings and loan industry, “failure of disclosure played a pretty important role in the inability of the examiners to find those transactions until long after they had deteriorated”.
Also, although it should be obvious, one of Beuttenmuller’s own witnesses, the former deputy savings and loan commissioner, described what a bank examiner would do if he discovered a cash-for-trash deal — as might have happened if the Mansfield transaction were disclosed in the important Tanglewood binder:
Q. But if you take the description of cash-for-trash that you gave us, if that’s fully disclosed to examiners they’re not going to allow that sale to stand, are they?
A. Well, if the sale has taken place they may object to it if they perceive it in that situation, yes.
Q. And the independent auditors aren’t going to allow any profit that’s reported to stand either, are they?
A. Probably not.
The majority suggests that the false entry that was made — the “commission” paid to a “purchaser” — was “equally atypical”. Maj. Op. at 983. The relevance of this suggestion is not apparent; it does not seem that an “atypical” false entry can obviate the material effect of the false entry as measured against what should have occurred — a truthful entry. Moreover, Billings was not shown as a purchaser of the Tanglewood property; the purchaser was the “Southmeadow Joint Venture”.17 In the light of the false entry’s *993“natural tendency to influence, or be capable of affecting or influencing, a government function”, see Swaim, 757 F.2d at 1534 (quoting Markham, 587 F.2d at 196), the false entry was material. Of course, this false entry provides further illumination of the intent of the parties to the transaction; if the exchange was “value for value”, instead of “eash-for-trash”, one wonders why the parties were so hesitant to risk calling attention to the Mansfield transaction in the Tangle-wood binder.
c.
The majority’s reversal of Gill’s convictions is predicated on its finding that the Mansfield/Tanglewood transaction was a lawful transaction. Maj. Op. at 981. As discussed, I disagree. Accordingly, I would affirm Gill’s convictions as well.18
II.
The scheme at issue is a modern, high stakes variation of a shell game, in which funds were moved about with blinding speed. When the participants were brought before the bar of justice several years later, the jury was there to observe the witnesses, receive the evidence and the court’s charge, hear closing arguments, and reach a verdict.
In short, the jury was there; we weren’t. We must apply the correct, deferential standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. In so doing — examining the evidence in a light most favorable to the government, to include construing all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the verdicts — I conclude that a rational jury could have properly reached the verdicts that it did. Therefore, I would affirm the convictions. Because the majority concludes otherwise, I must respectfully dissent.
. Gill and Beuttenmuller raise other issues, which the majority does not reach, because it reverses on the sufficiency challenge. None justifies reversal.
. Courts are not unfamiliar with similar schemes to use savings and loan funds as down payment on REO. See, e.g., United States v. Best, 939 F.2d 425 (7th Cir.1991) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1243, 117 L.Ed.2d 476 (1992). In Best, which the majority cites, see Maj. Op. at 979, the court described one such scheme:
In addition to several other practices that violated the norms of the savings and loan industry, [the institution’s officers] would require borrowers to purchase REO from [the institution] and its subsidiaries as a condition of obtaining a loan. In so doing, [the officers] attempted to disguise [the institution's] deteriorating financial status. They would apply as much of the loan as was necessary to cover the down payment for the purchase of the real estate. By this tactic, [the officers], in effect, were selling [the institution's] real estate to the borrower — who typically was not creditworthy and known by [the officers] to be so — for no cash down.
Id. at 426 (citation omitted). Much the same thing happened here, only rather than funnelling the money out via a "loan” subject to different collateral, Shamrock did so via an “investment" by one of its subsidiaries in Mansfield. See also United States v. Best, 913 F.2d 1179, 1180-81 (7th Cir.1990) (employing phrase "lightly laundered”), vacated on rehearing, 939 F.2d 425 (7th Cir.1991) (en banc).
. The Mansfield property was totally leveraged. Billings and Gill had purchased the original 150 acres in June 1985 for approximately $1.9 million. Approximately $1.5 million of that purchase price was financed by the seller through a non-recourse note. The remainder (approximately $400,000) was financed through a bank loan. And, when the first interest payment to the seller came due in early 1986, Billings and Gill obtained another bank loan for $200,000 to cover it.
. As the majority notes, Franks was known as "Mr. Fix-It”; he testified at trial pursuant to a plea agreement in which he had pleaded guilty to charges of unlawful participation in a transaction involving a financial institution. Maj. Op. at 975 n. 3. In late 1986 or early 1987, Franks had also pleaded guilty to two counts of mail fraud and one count of wire fraud. Franks recalled that, at the time of the Tanglewood/Mansfield transaction, it was a matter of public information that he was the subject of a federal investigation. And, although he could not specifically recall if he had mentioned this to the Tanglewood/Mans-field parties, he did state that he was "letting anyone that I was in business with” know of the federal investigation.
.Billings did nothing to facilitate the sale of the Tanglewood property. In fact, he had,never seen it, did not know how much (if any) income it was producing, did nothing to try to sell it, and had no brokerage agreement with Shamrock. In addition, Billings tilso played virtually no role in attempting to sell or find an investor for the Mansfield property. He testified that he “basically just dumped it in [Gill's] lap and said, whatever you can negotiate on our best interests I probably will go along with.”
.The majority disagrees with my position that the jury could decide that the appraisal was ridiculously speculative, stating: “Although there was some question concerning the appraised value at trial, no evidence was introduced that could reasonably lead a jury to conclude that the appraisal was so flawed or otherwise invalid that the jury could ignore it altogether.” Maj. Op. at 980 n. 17. As discussed. Miller had no clue what it would cost to develop the property (from an engineering standpoint, much less from a marketing one); he variously assented to suggestions of $1 million, $2 million, and $3 million, but concluded that he had "no way of knowing” the development cost.
. One of Beuttenmuller’s own witnesses testified that a cash-for-trash deal may "involve an appraisal that has a very optimistic view of value of that land”; thus, it is unsurprising that the appraisal assumed full development of the acreage and neglected to discount the possible future revenues from the fully-developed site to present value. Although the majority opines that "[tjhere has been no suggestion at trial” that the appraisal was not an arm's length, “professional assessment of the property”, Maj. Op. at 976 n. 5, there was a very real suggestion at trial that the appraisal was greatly exaggerated.
. The majority notes that the jury cannot "rely on maxims as evidence.” Maj. Op. at 980 n. 17. *988But, as is discussed later, an expert witness suggested to the jury that a property's value can be truly ascertained only upon a sale.
. Billings also noted that, since the original purchase of the Mansfield property, “the real estate market had gone sour". Later, he stated that, as Gill desperately searched for a purchaser or investor, the "[r]eal estate market was the worst it had been”, and that “[t]here were no other buyers out there."
. The majority states that I "conveniently overlook[ ] the rezoning that occurred since the property was sold for $2 million. The undisputed evidence in this record demonstrates that after the rezoning, the property had an appraised value of at least $4 million.” Maj. Op. at 980 n. 17. The majority makes it appear that there was a sudden increase in the property’s value on rezoning, but there is no evidence in the record that the rezoning was anything more than a mere formality, and thus no evidence that the original purchase price did not already reflect Mansfield's value for commercial exploitation. In fact, the record contains evidence that the parties assumed that the rezoning would be no problem; indeed, the broker who approached Billings with the original 150 acre Mansfield tract "indicated it [rezoning] could be done.” Billings then approached Gill with an eye toward determining whether this was so. Thus, all the parties assumed the property’s utility for development when the property sold for around $2 million; it is a dubious claim that the property’s value increased materially — indeed, doubled — as a consequence of the rezoning. (Even the majority notes that Billings and Gill purchased the property to “develop” it. Maj. Op. at 975. If there were to be rezoning problems — a proposition unsupported by the record — then Billings and Gill’s purchase would have been worse than unlucky; it would have been plain stupid.) Even if some nominal increase in value occurred as a consequence of rezoning, there is no way of knowing whether that increase offset the corresponding, intervening collapse of the real estate market (as discussed supra). Accordingly, a jury would not be irrational to conclude that the property was worth about $2 million — without considering the attached $2.2 million in debt.
.At least they were able to get the "financing” of Tanglewood to include a non-recourse provision; after all, there are some things that even straw men (or your laundiy) should not have to do.
. Presumably, the ''1989” appraisal to which the majority refers was an August 1988 appraisal of $4 million. Although this appraisal apparently was never introduced — at trial or sentencing— it was referred to in an affidavit introduced at sentencing. That affidavit, in turn, referred to an April 1989 memorandum concerning Mansfield, which “reiterated” the $4 million value. To be consistent with the majority and avoid confusion, we will also refer to the $4 million figure as a 1989 appraisal.
. Taking a page from the majority's book, one of the defendants' witnesses at sentencing testified that "there wasn't” any devaluation of the property between September 1986 and 1989. Furthermore, an appraisal prepared in May 1990, which was admitted at sentencing, contained a market value of only $2,180,000 for Mansfield (and estimated its fair value if a sale were conducted within 12 months as $1,300,-000).
.Franks, a.k.a. “Mr. Fix-It”, provided a more detailed explanation of the term in the following colloquy with the prosecutor:
Q. In the real estate industry what term is commonly used to 4escribe these kinds of transactions?
A. The term cash-for-trash is used frequently and was used then.
Q. Could you explain the term cash-for-trash?
A. The term cash-for-trash, as I understand it, means that a lender, savings and loan, bank, insurance company, whatever, would furnish financing for either the acquisition or refinancing of a person's property provided that a portion, if not all, of those funds were utilized in the acquisition of a problem loan or an REO on the books of that lender.
*990Q. And in this transaction what was the cash going to be?
A. The cash would be a portion of the funds that were generated from the service corporation of Jerry Lane's savings and loan[’]s[] acquisition of the Gill property. A portion of that cash would be used to fund the acquisition of the REO.
Q. What was the trash?
A. Trash would be referred to as the Austin property [Tanglewood],
(Emphasis added.)
. A jury could find that there might have been some value-for-value component to the exchange. Put differently, perhaps a jury could infer that a 45 percent stake in Mansfield was worth $100,-000 (the agreed equity payments for Billings and Gill). But, this falls far short of accounting for the $550,000 that moved in a circle; and a jury could rationally conclude that the $550,000 was not part of any value-for-value exchange.
. I also note that ample evidence existed to prove that Beuttenmuller knew about the 20 percent requirement, and understood why the deal was being "papered" by him in the manner that it was.
. Perhaps the majority supposes that a diligent bank examiner could discern from other docu-*993merits in the closing binder that Billings was a partner in Southmeadow; this would be possible. However, such conjecture would not excuse the false statement that was made, nor would such conjecture provide outright the evidence of the tie-in between the two transactions as a truthful distribution entry in the Tanglewood binder would.
. There was ample evidence to suggest that Gill participated in the transaction with an awareness of its illicit purpose. Among other things, Gill had authorized Ricky Ramsey, a real estate broker with whom he shared an office, to write a letter to another broker, stating that Billings and Gill "are willing to sell [Mansfield] at a discount from the appraisal and purchase some REO from Vernon Savings with part of the proceeds.” A jury could infer from this letter (and testimony that Vernon was trying to sell REO) that Gill, in his desperate situation regarding Mansfield, was . offering to serve as a straw man for another savings and loan seeking, like Shamrock, to rid itself of REO. Moreover, Gill was, of course, aware that the figures involved in the transaction were "backed into” to provide the necessary down payment to Shamrock. The jury had enough evidence to infer that Gill knowingly participated in Shamrock's “cash-for-trash" scheme.