Ferracone

*161 MEMORANDUM *

Guido Bensberg appeals the judgment entered against him for violating the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a), and the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), together with Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 140 .10b-5. We affirm.

Bensberg argues that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking because Bensberg is foreign, Leu Bank and Lehman Brothers International (London) are foreign entities, and no element of fraud took place in the United States. However, sufficient conduct that materially furthered the fraudulent scheme occurred here. See Grunenthal GmbH v. Hotz, 712 F.2d 421, 424-25 (9th Cir.1988). Stock certificates for the Leu transaction were prepared and obtained in the United States, as were certificates of Affinity Teleproductions, Inc., which were delivered to Lehman Brothers Miami to facilitate the Lehman Brothers scheme. Money was deposited into Bensberg’s account in Miami. This is unlike Butte Mining PLC v. Smith, 76 F.3d 287 (9th Cir.1996), upon which Bensberg relies, because there the only conduct in the United States (purchase of land) was preparatory to fraud that occurred in connection with an exchange outside the United States, between foreign…