AND · 18usc1962:conspiracy
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)).
Exact element source
to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this sectionSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1962; Unicode character offsets [1936:2027] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6caae47f43b5ab0899b660616e298363bd36f9f540d915c2be11eb7126f5e27d.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| agreement/conclusory-no-facts-of-knowing-agreement | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp-2d/118/0392-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2000 — applied/alternative | |
| agreement/only-to-commit-predicates-not-to-further-enterprise | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp/567/1146-01 — United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 1983 — not | |
| derivative-of-substantive-claim/no-enterprise-alleged | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/80/1293-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996 — not | |
| derivative-of-substantive-claim/no-pattern | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f2d/976/1016-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992 — not | |
| derivative-of-substantive-claim/substantive-counts-deficient | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp-2d/118/0392-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2000 — not | |
| Unspecified variant | No variant assigned in the database. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 4 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp-2d/926/1143-01 — United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2013 — applied/merits; /f3d/490/0575-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007 — background/merits; /us/510/0249-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 — rule-announced/merits |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f-supp-2d/118/0392-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2000 | Conspiracy to violate § 1962(a), (b), or (c) (§ 1962(d)) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (a),(c),(d); count: § 1962(d) claim (Claim 120); theory: derivative of the dismissed (a) and (c) claims; subject: count=§ 1962(d) claim (Claim 120); theory=derivative of the dismissed (a) and (c) claims | derivative-of-substantive-claim/substantive-counts-deficient | Plaintiffs’ substantive claims under 18 U.S.C.1962(a) and (c) fail to state a cause of action, and have been dismissed. As a result, Plaintiffs’ claim under section 1962(d) sounding in conspiracy to violate sections 1962(a) and (c) must also be dismissed.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [44002:44257] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139.Therefore, the purported Section 1962(d) claim (Claim 120) also must fail as a matter of law.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [44779:44872] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139. |
| /f-supp-2d/118/0392-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2000 | Conspiracy to violate § 1962(a), (b), or (c) (§ 1962(d)) | not Excluded from merits counts applied / alternative basis: pleaded; claim: (a),(c),(d); count: § 1962(d) claim (Claim 120); theory: each defendant's own agreement to commit two predicate acts; subject: count=§ 1962(d) claim (Claim 120); theory=each defendant's own agreement to commit two predicate acts Applies the pre-Salinas Second Circuit rule that each conspirator must personally agree to commit two predicates. | agreement/conclusory-no-facts-of-knowing-agreement | In addition, the Section 1962(d) claim fails as against every defendant because the complaint does not allege that each defendant agreed to commit two or more predicate acts.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [44873:45047] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139.Here, Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and Civil RICO Statement are devoid of any factual allegation whatsoever to indicate that any of the moving defendants were aware of the alleged scope of the purported enterprise, or that they specifically agreed to further the alleged scheme through the commission or facilitation of any racketeering activity.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [47289:47636] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139. |
| /f-supp-2d/926/1143-01 — United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2013 | Conspiracy to violate § 1962(a), (b), or (c) (§ 1962(d)) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (c),(d) Held triable in the prior order; not revisited. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f-supp/567/1146-01 — United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 1983 | Conspiracy to violate § 1962(a), (b), or (c) (§ 1962(d)) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (b),(c),(d) | agreement/only-to-commit-predicates-not-to-further-enterprise | Although plaintiff does allege that defendants conspired to commit mail fraud and wire fraud, plaintiff fails to allege a RICO conspiracy since it does not state that defendants made their agreement in order to further the affairs of a RICO “enterprise.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1146-01; Unicode character offsets [24628:24882] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3836bc32665b8e1a72ea181c77043419d514089c013853f5fc10624d665e146c.The Court stated that an agreement merely to commit the predicate offenses would not be sufficient to support a RICO conspiracy.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1146-01; Unicode character offsets [23725:23853] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3836bc32665b8e1a72ea181c77043419d514089c013853f5fc10624d665e146c.Therefore, the First Count of plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege that defendants violated Section 1962(d), the conspiracy subsection of RICO.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1146-01; Unicode character offsets [24883:25027] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3836bc32665b8e1a72ea181c77043419d514089c013853f5fc10624d665e146c. |
| /f2d/976/1016-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992 | Conspiracy to violate § 1962(a), (b), or (c) (§ 1962(d)) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (c),(d) | derivative-of-substantive-claim/no-pattern | A few loose ends: First, the § 1962(d) RICO conspiracy claim is also premised on the existence of a pattern of racketeering; therefore, we need not further address that issue or Grunfeld’s dismissal from the suit as a co-conspirator.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_976.jsonl#/f2d/976/1016-01; Unicode character offsets [32241:32474] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ebc98ea70879c4cb40e7f64b87cbfd47e72732fe1a73dbca8733e49576748b79. |
| /f3d/490/0575-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007 | Conspiracy to violate § 1962(a), (b), or (c) (§ 1962(d)) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / merits claim: (d) Charged offense is (d) conspiracy to violate (c); merits untried. The opinion decides only that the charged conspiracy is a separate offense from the earlier ones. | Unspecified variant | They are being charged with participating in a con- spiracy to operate an enterprise by means of criminal acts that include murder, arson, intimidation, etc.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_490.jsonl#/f3d/490/0575-01; Unicode character offsets [6868:7025] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d3f7952bc44164fe54f852372a101a8e7a1d40c97a01f7a57d5fb26c65d9e235. |
| /f3d/80/1293-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996 | Conspiracy to violate § 1962(a), (b), or (c) (§ 1962(d)) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (c),(d) (d) claim falls with the (c) claim; no independent analysis of agreement. | derivative-of-substantive-claim/no-enterprise-alleged | Without a proper allegation of an enterprise, neither the § 1962(c) nor the § 1962(d) claims can survive Appellees’ motion to dismiss.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_80.jsonl#/f3d/80/1293-01; Unicode character offsets [25246:25380] (end exclusive); SHA-256 26cde6fa4ab06011a337a0eb0c4944860e40f7ebb537337a05e0b8e6b410e5bb. |
| /us/510/0249-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 | Conspiracy to violate § 1962(a), (b), or (c) (§ 1962(d)) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (c),(d) (d) claim was dismissed below only because the substantive claims fell; revived by the reversal without separate analysis. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /us/556/0938-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 | Conspiracy to violate § 1962(a), (b), or (c) (§ 1962(d)) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (c),(d); count: § 1962(d) RICO conspiracy count; subject: count=§ 1962(d) RICO conspiracy count (d) conviction stands with the (c) conviction; discussed only to reject the argument that the Court's reading merges (c) with §371 or (d). | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations
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.
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)).
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)).
interpretation
Section 1962(d) makes it unlawful to conspire to associate with and participate in the conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering.
Section 1962(d) makes it unlawful to conspire to associate with and participate in the conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0338-01; Unicode character offsets [24368:24514] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fe5d89352e19f2942a215b3899a8cfd7e15bb25c2b27d60d16ea5febdeb15a77.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)).
interpretation
Plaintiffs’ substantive claims under 18 U.S.C.1962(a) and (c) fail to state a cause of action, and have been dismissed. As a result, Plaintiffs’ claim under section 1962(d) sounding in conspiracy to violate sections 1962(a) and (c) must also be dismissed.
/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2000
Plaintiffs’ substantive claims under 18 U.S.C.1962(a) and (c) fail to state a cause of action, and have been dismissed. As a result, Plaintiffs’ claim under section 1962(d) sounding in conspiracy to violate sections 1962(a) and (c) must also be dismissed.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [44002:44257] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139.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)).
not-required
An overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy (Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (1997))
No source quotation recorded.
not-required
Agreement by the defendant to personally commit two predicate acts, so long as the defendant agreed that a conspirator would commit two predicate acts in conducting the enterprise (Salinas, 522 U.S. at 65)
No source quotation recorded.