5th Cir. Pattern Jury Instr. (Criminal) 2.79

18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962(c), makes it a crime for anyone employed by

or associated with an enterprise engaged in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce to conduct

or to participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of that enterprise through a

pattern of racketeering activity [collection of an unlawful debt] . The defendant,

____________________, is charged in Count ___ with committing this crime from on or about

_________, to on or about _______________, in that the defendant is alleged to have

_______________________.

For you to find the defendant guilty of this crime, you must be convinced that the

government has proved each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: That the defendant was a person employed by or associated with the enterprise

charged;

Second: That the enterprise existed as alleged in the indictment.

An enterprise includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal

entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact, although not a legal entity. The

term enterprise includes both legal and illegal associations. Th e enterprise must be separate and

apart from the pattern of racketeering activity in which the defendant allegedly engaged. The

enterprise must be proven to have been an ongoing organization, formal or informal, that

functioned as a continuing unit;

Third: That the defendant, either directly or indirectly, conducted or participated in the

conduct of the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity [collection of

unlawful debt].

The defendant must have participated in the operation or management of the enterprise but

need not be a member of upper management. Racketeering activity includes the acts charged as

separate crimes in Counts _____, ________, and _________. You have been i nstructed on what

the government must prove to establish that the defendant committed these acts.

[If the predicate acts are not charged in separate counts, instructions on the elements of

each racketeering activity will need to be given as part of the racketeering charge.]

To prove a pattern of racketeering activity, the government must prove beyond a reasonable

doubt that (1) the acts of racketeering activity are related to each other, and (2) they amount to or

pose a threat of continued criminal activity. To prove the racketeering acts are related to one

375

another, the government must prove that the criminal conduct charged embraces criminal acts that

have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or

otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events.

At a minimum, a pattern of racketeering activity requires at least two acts of racketeering

activity within ten years of each other; provided, however, that the government proves the

relationship and continuity of those acts as defined. All of you must be unanimous as to which

racketeering acts you each believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed.

Unless you are unanimous in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a

racketeering act charged, you must disregard that act in deciding whether the defendant is guilty

or not guilty of racketeering. It is not sufficient that some of the jurors find that the defendant

committed two of the acts while others of you find that the defendant committed different acts.

The government must prove that the defendant, directly or indirectly through the pattern of

racketeering activity charged, conducted or participated in the conduct of the affairs of the

enterprise. To do so, the government must additionally demonstrate a r elationship among the

defendant, the pattern of racketeering activity, and the enterprise. The defendant and the enterprise

cannot be the same. To prove that the defendant conducted or participated as alleged, the

government must prove that the defendant i n fact committed the racketeering acts as alleged, the

defendant’s position in the enterprise facilitated his [her] commission of the acts, and these acts

had some effect on the enterprise; and

Fourth: That the enterprise was engaged in interstate [foreign] commerce or that its

activities affected interstate [foreign] commerce.

The enterprise “engaged in commerce” if it directly engaged in the production, distribution,

or acquisition of goods or services in interstate [foreign] commerce.

The enterprise ’s conduct “affected” interstate [foreign] commerce if the conduct had a

demonstrated connection or link with such commerce.

It is not necessary for the government to prove that the defendant knew or intended that the

enterprise was engaged in commerce or that its conduct would affect commerce. It is only

necessary that the natural consequences of the enterprise ’s conduct affected commerce in some

way. Only a minimal effect on commerce is necessary.