I think you (and apparently several other people) have misunderstood my comment: it is clear from the opinion that for 4% of victims to live in New Jersey is not adequate for venue to be proper. The question I was responding to, though, was why the government would want for venue to be proper in New Jersey. It was hypothesized that the government sought to apply some particular New Jersey law. My point was only that, assuming there is some such law (and it appears from the opinion that there is -- though its applicability is questionable), that would not explain why the government sought to have the trial in New Jersey because they could apply the New Jersey law regardless of whether the trial was held in New Jersey.
The more likely explanation, as others have pointed out, is simply that the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey is the one who wanted to bring the case.
The more likely explanation, as others have pointed out, is simply that the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey is the one who wanted to bring the case.