The district court correctly instructed the jury regarding the presumption of intent to defraud creditors flowing from the operation of a Ponzi scheme. The instructions properly defined a Ponzi scheme as one in which proceeds received from new investors are transferred to previous investors, thereby giving investors the impression that a legitimate profit-making opportunity exists, when it does not. The court did not err in rejecting a proposed instruction that the jury would have to find that the fraudster knew he was operating a Ponzi scheme that would ultimately collapse. The court also properly instructed the jury that lenders are investors for Ponzi scheme purposes.