United States v. Turkette
Nature of the Case
The First Circuit held that Congress did not intend to include organizations which are exclusively criminal within the definition of “enterprise”. Every other circuit had come to the opposite conclusion and the United States Supreme Court granted cert.
Facts
Turkette (D) and twelve others were charged with conspiracy to participate in an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce through a pattern of racketeering activities. The enterprise was defined as “a group of individuals associated in fact for the purpose of illegally trafficking in narcotics and other dangerous drugs, committing arsons, utilizing the United States mails to defraud insurance companies, bribing and attempting to bribe local police officers, and corruptly influencing and attempting to corruptly influence the outcome of state court proceedings.”
Turkette was convicted on all nine counts after a six week jury trial. He was sentenced to 20 years on the substantive counts, as well as a two year special parole term on the drug count. Turkette was sentenced to a 20 year concurrent term on the RICO count and fined $20,000. On appeal, Turkette argued that the RICO statute was intended to protect only legitimate business enterprises from infiltration by racketeers and that RICO does not otherwise criminalize the participation in an association which performs only illegal acts. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issue
- Does “enterprise” under RICO include both illegal and legitimate enterprises?
Holding and Rule of Law (White)
- Yes. “Enterprise” under RICO includes both illegal and legitimate enterprises.
Section 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) of the RICO statute makes it 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.” The term ‘enterprise’ is defined as including ‘any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.’
There is no limitation placed upon the associations embraced by the definition. The Court held that an enterprise includes any union or group of individuals associated in fact. The definition appears on its face to include both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises. Congress could easily have narrowed the definition by inserting the word “legitimate” but it did not.
The Court of Appeals relied on the rule of ejusdem generis, an aid to statutory construction problems suggesting that where general words follow a specific enumeration of persons or things, the general words should be limited to persons or things similar to those specifically enumerated. However, the rule of ejusdem generis is no more than an aid to construction and comes into play only when there is some uncertainty as to the meaning of a particular clause in a statute.
In order to secure a conviction under RICO, the Government must prove both the existence of an enterprise and the connected pattern of racketeering activity. RICO also proscribes the investment of income derived from racketeering activity in an enterprise engaged in or which affects interstate commerce as well as the acquisition of an interest in or control of any such enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.
Disposition
Reversed.
Notes
The scope of the RICO statute has been expansively interpreted by the courts. Its application has reached into wide and diverse areas including civil litigation. RICO applies to both legitimate business and business organizations that perform only illegal acts.