Yes, we are.  The thing is that they&#x27;ve got to freeze $40M+ which probably is everything after what he spent.<p>The reason for this is that money is fungible.  I can choose to spend from stolen assets or my original assets.  Thus, it makes no sense to think of some as &quot;tainted&quot; and other funds as &quot;untainted&quot; which is something you will also see the justices question in oral argument.  There&#x27;s no sense in rewarding someone for spending the stolen money first, which is the only thing the rule being proposed would accomplish.<p>That&#x27;s the same reason they&#x27;ve repeatedly <i>rejected</i> the idea, as also is mentioned repeatedly in oral argument by both the liberal (Kagan) and conservative members of the Supreme Court.