·
Case and law context
Interpretation-only case: no CASE context or instance blocks recorded in this snapshot.
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
To obtain a conviction under this statute, the government was required to prove "that an enterprise affecting interstate commerce existed; that each defendant knowingly and intentionally agreed with another person to conduct or participate in the affairs of the enterprise; and .
To obtain a conviction under this statute, the government was required to prove "that an enterprise affecting interstate commerce existed; that each defendant knowingly and intentionally agreed with another person to conduct or participate in the affairs of the enterprise; and .Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0242-01; Unicode character offsets [28535:28814] (end exclusive); SHA-256 57793dd1aba827b59bff9ad538c0e503981d9c40eec6cbde662c786050cc5ea5.A de minimis effect on interstate commerce by the enterprise's activities (including detrimental effects on victims engaged in commerce) suffices.
interpretation
To obtain a conviction under this statute, the government was required to prove "that an enterprise affecting interstate commerce existed; that each defendant knowingly and intentionally agreed with another person to conduct or participate in the affairs of the enterprise; and .
To obtain a conviction under this statute, the government was required to prove "that an enterprise affecting interstate commerce existed; that each defendant knowingly and intentionally agreed with another person to conduct or participate in the affairs of the enterprise; and .Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0242-01; Unicode character offsets [28535:28814] (end exclusive); SHA-256 57793dd1aba827b59bff9ad538c0e503981d9c40eec6cbde662c786050cc5ea5.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)).