11th Cir. Pattern Jury Instr. (Civil) 7.2

18 U.S.C. § 1962(b)– Acquiring or Maintaining an Interest in or Control of

an Enterprise

[Name of plaintiff] asserts a claim against [name of defendant] for allegedly

violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly

known as RICO. [Name of plaintiff] specifically claims that [name of defendant]

violated § 1962(b) of RICO.

To succeed on this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove each of the

following four facts by a preponderance of the evidence:

First, you must find that [name of defendant] engaged in a pattern of

racketeering activity.

Second, you must find that through the pattern of racketeering activity,

[name of defendant] acquired or maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or

control of an enterprise.

And third, you must find that the enterprise engaged in, or had some effect

on, interstate or foreign commerce.

Now I’ll provide you with some additional instructions to apply as you

consider the facts that [name of plaintiff] must prove.

First, [name of plaintiff] must prove that [name of defendant] engaged in a

pattern of racketeering activity. “Racketeering activity” is an act that violates [the

specific statute[s] alleged]. I’ll explain the law about [this statute/these statutes] to

2

5.13

help you determine whether [name of plaintiff] proved by a preponderance of the

evidence that [name of defendant] violated [this statute/these statutes]. An act of

“racketeering activity” is sometimes referred to as a “predicate act.”

A “pattern of racketeering activity” means that [name of defendant]

committed at least two distinct predicate acts. Distinct does not have to mean

different types. But by itself, proof of two or more predicate acts doesn’t establish

a pattern under RICO.

To prove a pattern of predicate acts, [name of plaintiff] must show that the

acts were related to one another. Two or more acts of racketeering activity that

aren’t related don’t establish a pattern of racketeering activity under RICO.

Predicate acts are “related” to one another if they have the same or similar

purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods. Predicate acts are also related

if they have common distinguishing characteristics and aren’t isolated events.

To be related, the predicate acts don’t have to be the same kind of acts. For

example, the acts may comprise one act of [type of alleged predicate act (e.g., wire

fraud)] and one act of [another type of alleged predicate act (e.g., interstate

transportation of stolen property)].

A pattern of racketeering activity requires predicate acts showing continuity.

This can be demonstrated in two basic ways. The first is to demonstrate related

predicate acts extending over a substantial period of time. The second is to show

3

5.13

conduct that doesn’t occur over a substantial period of time but, by its nature, is

likely to be repeated into the future.

Again, “racketeering activity” means an act that violates [the statute[s] at

issue]. But you can’t consider just any racketeering act [name of defendant]

allegedly committed in violation of one of these statutes as bearing on whether

[name of defendant] has committed two or more predicate acts as a pattern of

racketeering activity. [To determine if there is a pattern of racketeering activity,

you must consider only those specific racketeering acts [name of plaintiff] alleges

against [name of defendant.]] And you can’t find that [name of defendant] engaged

in a “pattern of racketeering activity” unless you unanimously agree on which of

the alleged predicate acts, if any, make up the pattern.

So it’s insufficient if you don’t all agree to the finding of what two or more

predicate acts [name of defendant] committed. Some of you can’t find that the

predicate acts are A, B, and C and the rest of you find that the predicate acts are X,

Y, and B. Put another way, you can’t find that [name of defendant] has engaged in

a pattern of racketeering activity unless you find (1) a “pattern” of predicate acts,

and (2) that [name of plaintiff] has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that

[name of defendant] committed each of the two or more predicate acts that you

find make up that pattern.

4

5.13