Federal- RICO
Statute
18 USC 1962. Prohibited activities
- It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. A purchase of securities on the open market for purposes of investment, and without the intention of controlling or participating in the control of the issuer, or of assisting another to do so, shall not be unlawful under this subsection if the securities of the issuer held by the purchaser, the members of his immediate family, and his or their accomplices in any pattern or racketeering activity or the collection of an unlawful debt after such purchase do not amount in the aggregate to one percent of the outstanding securities of any one class, and do not confer, either in law or in fact, the power to elect one or more directors of the issuer.
- It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.
- It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.
- It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.
Jury Instruction
Substantive Offense
The Defendant can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
- That the Defendant was associated with an “enterprise” as defined in these instructions;
- That the Defendant knowingly and willfully committed, or knowingly and willfully aided and abetted the commission of at least two of the predicate offenses hereinafter specified;
- That the two predicate offenses allegedly committed by the Defendant were connected with each other by some common scheme, plan or motive so as to be a pattern of criminal activity and not merely a series of separate, isolated or disconnected acts;
- That through the commission of two or more connected offenses, the Defendant conducted or participated in the conduct of the “enterprise’s” affairs; and
- That the enterprise was engaged in or that is activities affected, interstater commerce.
With respect to the first specific fact stated above, the Government need only prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was aware of the general existence of the enterprise described in the indictment in order for you to find that the Defendant was “associated.”
The term “enterprise” includes any partnership, corporation, association or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.
The term “pattern of racketeering activity” requires at least two acts of “racketeering activity” sometimes called predicate offenses, which must have been committed within 10 years of each other, one of which must have occurred after October 15, 1970.
The term “racketeering activity” includes an act in violation of Title 18 of the United States Code relating to mail fraud (section 1341) and wire fraud (section 1343).
Conspiracy
The Defendant can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
- That two or more persons, in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, namely, to engage in a “pattern of racketeering activity” as charged in the indictment; and
- That the Defendant knowingly and willfully became a member of such conspiracy; and
- That at the time the Defendant willfully agreed to join in such conspiracy, the Defendant did so with the specific intent either to personally participate in the commission of two “predicate offenses,” as elsewhere defined, or that the Defendant specifically intended to otherwise participate in the affairs of the “enterprise” with knowledge and intent that other members of the conspiracy would commit two or more “predicate offenses” as part of a “pattern of racketeering activity.”
Under the law, a “conspiracy” is an agreement or a kind of “partnership in criminal purposes” in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member.
A person may become a member of a conspiracy without knowing all of the details of the unlawful scheme, and without knowing who all of the other members are. So, if a Defendant has a general understanding of the unlawful purpose of the plan (including the nature and anticipated weight of the substance involved) and knowingly and willfully joins in that plan on one occasion, that is sufficient to convict that Defendant for conspiracy even though the Defendant did not participate before and even though the Defendant played only a minor part.
Of course, mere presence at the scene of the transaction or event, or the mere fact that certain persons may have associated with each other, and may have assembled together and discussed common aims and interests, does not, standing alone, establish proof of a conspiracy. Also, a person who has no knowledge of a conspiracy, but who happens to act in a way that advances some purpose of one, does not thereby become a conspirator.
|
