Does response 1 answer the question? 1. How do you think the prosecution would have gone about proving their case? List the elements of the crime and what the defendant did that met each element. Explain in detail. response 1 I believe the prosecution would've used past evidence into why the defendants got into kite banking. The prosecution could bring up evidence from the past law suit in which it involved the payday loan violation. After that, the decline in the business right after the lawsuit. The prosecution can argue the defendants desperation and hope to solve their declining business involved illegal action. Back to the case at hand, the brothers knowingly drawn out funds to cover the checks that they were cashing, knowing that their two business accounts didn't have the sufficient amount of funds to compensate for the check balances, and to cover that up, the brothers created separate vendors and creditors. Then, to add to the evidence, one of the brothers wrote excessive amounts of checks that didn't depict the balances that the brothers actually had. Over time, the amount increased, and more balances were tallied out of the checks that were deposited