Please solve the following semantic inference question:

7. (2%) Using semantic inferences in court. An individual was a movie producer who filed for bankruptcy in the mid 19005 after his very expensive film failed at the box office He was questioned under oath by his creditors regarding his overseas assets. The exchange went as follows: Q. Do you have any bank accounts in Swiss banks? A. No. Q. Have you ever? A. The company had an account there for about six months. Q. Have you any nominees who have bank accounts in Swiss banks? A. No. Q. Have you ever? A. No. It turned out that the individual personally had had an account with a Swiss bank. He made deposits in it and drew checks from during the years in which the company was active. He closed it just before the bankruptcy filing. He was charged for lying in court and convicted. But he appealed, and ultimately he was acquitted (found not guilty) by the U.S. Supreme Court, who ruled that it is the responsibility of the questioner to press for further information when the respondent is 'unresponsive'. Question. What type of inference was made that caused the individual to be charged for lying in court? Was the individual's acquittal (verdict that the individual was not guilty) by the U.S. Supreme Court logically justified? Use your knowledge of inference types to analyze the conversation and justify your