11th Cir. Pattern Jury Instr. (Criminal) O75.2

18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)

It’s a Federal crime for anyone associated with an enterprise whose activities

involve or affect interstate commerce to participate in conducting the activities of the

enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.

The meaning of certain terms and an explanation of what the Government must

prove for this crime are in the instructions covering Count of the indictment. The

Defendants named in Count of the indictment – the conspiracy count – are

not charged with violating Section 1962(c). They are charged with willfully and

knowingly conspiring to violate that law by [insert alleged racketeering acts]. Conspiracy

is a separate crime, and violates Section 1962(d).

A “conspiracy” is an agreement by two or more persons to commit an unlawful

act. In other words, it is a kind of partnership for criminal purposes. Every member of

the conspiracy becomes the agent or partner of every other member.

The Government does not have to prove that all the people named in the

indictment were members of the plan, or that those who were members made any kind

of formal agreement. The heart of a conspiracy is the making of the unlawful plan itself,

so the Government does not have to prove that the conspirators succeeded in carrying

out the plan.

An “enterprise” includes legal entities such as any partnership, corporation, or

association. It also includes a non-legal entity that is a group of people associated for a

common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct.

“Racketeering activity” includes any acts that violate [cite relevant statute(s),

e.g. Title 18 of the United States Code relating to mail fraud (Section 1341) and wire

fraud (Section 1343)].

A “pattern of racketeering activity” means that at least two acts of racketeering

activity were committed within ten (10) years. At least one of the acts must have

occurred after October 15, 1970.

The Defendant can be found guilty only if all the following facts are proved

beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1) two or more people agreed to try to accomplish an unlawful

plan to participate in the affairs of an enterprise through a

pattern of racketeering activity;

(2) the enterprise engaged in, or the activities of the enterprise

affected, interstate commerce;

(3) the Defendant knowingly and willfully joined in the conspiracy;

and

(4) when the Defendant joined in the agreement, the Defendant

had the specific intent either to personally participate in

committing at least two acts of racketeering, or else to

participate in the enterprise’s affairs, knowing that other

members of the conspiracy would commit at least two acts of

racketeering and intending to help them as part of a pattern of

racketeering activity.

A person may be a conspirator even without knowing all the details of the

unlawful plan or the names and identities of all the other alleged conspirators.

If the Defendant played only a minor part in the plan but had a general

understanding of the unlawful purpose of the plan – and willfully joined in the plan on at

least one occasion – that's sufficient for you to find the Defendant guilty.

But simply being present at the scene of an event or merely associating with

certain people and discussing common goals and interests doesn't establish proof of a

conspiracy. Also, a person who doesn't know about a conspiracy but happens to act in a

way that advances some purpose of one doesn't automatically become a conspirator.