The defendant, Raul Pol-Flores, refer red two investors to Luis Her rero-Rovira. The two investors were then defrauded of their entire $290,000 investment, and Pol received nearly $20,000 of the funds. When the two investors had deposited the $290,000 in the bank, Pol told the bank that the funds were for investments but that he was not authorized to engage in the activity. Herrero returned the funds to the investors but convinced them to engage in another investment option, CLEIGG. The investors reinvested their $290,000 but saw only $3,622 in interest payments. The CLEIGG account funded numerous wire transfers, totaling $119,072, to banks in Puerto Rico. Herrero withdrew a total of $125,000 from the CLEIGG account. Two of the wire transfers, totaling $20,000, were made to Pol's company, Polarco. Pol was found guilty on 10 counts of wire fraud. Pol argued there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to convict him as an aider and abettor to wire fraud. The court affirmed the district court's decision that a reasonable jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Pol had participated in Herrero's wire fraud scheme. Do you agree with the court's affirmation? Why or why not?