/f-supp-3d/367/0664-01

·

Original case on neochart.com

Case and law context

Interpretation-only case: no CASE context or instance blocks recorded in this snapshot.

Instances and excluded annotation blocks

Annotation blocks, including explicitly excluded context
CaseElementHolding and scopeVariantExact source quotations

Court interpretations recorded from this case

interpretation

To establish this offense, the Government must prove the following four elements: (i) an agreement, (ii) to conduct or participate, (iii) in an enterprise, (iv) through a pattern of racketeering activity.

/f-supp-3d/367/0664-01

To establish this offense, the Government must prove the following four elements: (i) an agreement, (ii) to conduct or participate, (iii) in an enterprise, (iv) through a pattern of racketeering activity.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_367.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/367/0664-01; Unicode character offsets [19235:19439] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c1d9d6c414a670823fd10c237e58626995c598f77d737836c071e0e2b2f891d1.

Note tension in older or lower-court civil opinions (e.g. Goldfine) that sometimes recite a requirement that each defendant agreed to commit two predicates; Salinas controls in criminal and modern civil cases, though civil § 1962(d) still requires a viable underlying § 1962(a)-(c) violation and an overt act that is itself a RICO predicate under Beck v. Prupis (529 U.S. 494 (2000)).