SELYA, Circuit Judge.In United States v. George (George I ), 841 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2016), we affirmed the conviction and sentence of a corrupt politician, defendant-appellant John George, Jr. At the same time, we vacated the district court's forfeiture order because the court lacked jurisdiction when it purposed to enter that order. See id. at 72.

We review the district court's determination that an individual was a participant for clear error. See United States v. George, 841 F.3d 55, 66, 69–70 (1st Cir. 2016). A participant is "a person who is criminally responsible for the commission of the offense, but need not have been convicted."

A salary inflated through a fraudulent scheme, by contrast, is not earned in good faith.” Del Valle-Colon, 2021 WL 5071907, at *3 (emphasis added) (citing United States v. George, 841 F.3d 55, 62 (1st Cir. 2016); United States v. Berroa, 856 F.3d 141, 161 (1st Cir. 2017)). Any other conclusion would produce absurd results. If employee salaries uniformly qualified for Section 666's safe harbor provision, “a fraudster would only have to structure his loot as salary to evade prosecution.” George, 841 F.3d at 62.

Indeed, § 2T1.1, application note 5, lists the use of "fictitious entities, corporate shells, or offshore financial accounts" as indicative of sophisticated means. In United Statesv. George, 841 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2016), the First Circuit viewed the defendant's use of a shell company as "one manifestation" of the sophistication of the defendant's "complex and intricate" scheme. Id. at 66.

We review an order denying a motion for judgment of acquittal de novo. See United States v. Simon, 12 F.4th 1, 23-24 (1st Cir. 2021), cert. denied sub nom. Kapoor v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 142 S. Ct. 2811, 213 L.Ed.2d 1037 (2022), and cert. denied sub nom. Lee v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 142 S. Ct. 2812, 213 L.Ed.2d 1037 (2022) ; United States v. George, 841 F.3d 55, 61 (1st Cir. 2016). Where, as here, the defendant challenges "the sufficiency of the evidence, all of the proof ‘must be perused from the government's perspective.’

While the government has eschewed any challenge either to the district court's jurisdiction or to this court's appellate jurisdiction, "we have an independent obligation to explore" potential jurisdictional infirmities. United States v. George, 841 F.3d 55, 70 (1st Cir. 2016). We start there, dealing with two jurisdictional questions that lurk in the penumbra of this case.

For this purpose, we take the facts in the light most flattering to the jury verdict, consistent with record support. See United States v. George, 841 F.3d 55, 59 (1st Cir. 2016). The defendant is a licensed physician, specializing in dermatology, who maintained a lucrative practice in Maine for decades. Between 2008 and 2013, the defendant sent his adult daughter S.S., who was then a resident of Florida, between $500 and $1,500 daily.

According to the First Circuit, the concept of “‘bona fide salary' means salary actually earned in good faith for work done for the employer.” United States v. George, 841 F.3d 55, 62 (1st Cir. 2016). Yet said concept has been applied by the First Circuit in limited instances.

The First Circuit has noted that "the limited exceptions to the general rule that an appeal terminates a district court's jurisdiction all pertain 'to district court orders that concern matters unrelated to the "substance of the decision" being appealed.'" United States v. George, 841 F.3d 55, 71 (1st Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Maldonado-Rios, 790 F.3d 62, 64 (1st Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (quoting 16A Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3949.1, at 59 (4th ed. 2008))). In the separate proceeding, because Petitioner has appealed from the substance of the decision, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the claims.

The other circuits that have addressed this question have reached the same conclusion. See United States v. George, 841 F.3d 55, 69 (1st Cir. 2016); United States v. Paccione, 202 F.3d 622, 625 (2d Cir. 2000); United States v. Colletti, 984 F.2d 1339, 1346 (3d Cir. 1992); United States v. Cabrera-Beltran, 660 F.3d 742, 756 (4th Cir. 2011); United States v. Dickerson, 909 F.3d 118, 127-28 (5th Cir. 2018); United States v. Bennett, 291 F.3d 888, 897-98 (6th Cir. 2002); United States v. Morelos, 544 F.3d 916, 920 (8th Cir. 2008); United States v. Walter-Eze, 869 F.3d 891, 914 (9th Cir. 2017); United States v. Hardwell, 80 F.3d 1471, 1496 (10th Cir. 1996); United States v. Holland, 22 F.3d 1040, 1045 (11th Cir. 1994). Several considerations support this conclusion.