Document: 393 U.S. 286 89 S.Ct. 534 21 L.Ed.2d 487 UNITED STATES, Appellant,v.Joseph Francis NARDELLO and Isadore Weisberg. No. 51. Argued Nov. 12, 1968. Decided Jan. 13, 1969. F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Jr. (argued) Charles A. Peruto, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees. Erwin N. Griswold, Sol. Gen., Fred M. Vinson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Philip Lacovara, Beatrice Rosenberg Sidney Glazer, Dept. of Justice, appellants. Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion Court. 1 This appeal presents solely a question statutory construction: whether 18 U.S.C. § 1952,1 prohibiting travel in interstate commerce with intent to carry on 'extortion' violation laws State which committed, applies extortionate conduct classified as 'blackmail' rather than applicable state penal code. We believe that 1952 (hereinafter 'the Travel Act') is thus must reverse court below. 2 Appellees were indicted under their alleged participation 'shakedown' operation whereby individuals would be lured into compromising homosexual situation then threatened exposure unless appellees' silence was purchased. The indictments charged appellees traveled three separate occasions, twice from New Jersey Philadelphia once Chicago promote activities. Specifically, referred unlawful activity blackmail, Common-wealth Pennsylvania.' 3 District Court Eastern Pennsylvania dismissed indictments, basing its decision upon statutes classify certain acts others various aspects 'blackmail.' In Pennsylvania, statute entitled only public officials. Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. 18, 4318 (1963). Three other statutes, §§ 4801—4803 (1963), prohibit 'blackmail,' 'blackmail by injury reputation or business,' accusation heinous crime.' Each these defines prohibited offense as, inter alia, an act committed 'to extort.' believed term extortion used Act intended track closely legal understanding law.' 278 F.Supp. 711, 712 (1968). Reasoning this premise, concluded covered 4318, required accused official. Since not officials, indictment therefore defective.2 United States appealed directly pursuant 3731 probable jurisdiction noted. 392 923, 88 2281, 20 1382 4 Although Congress directed content should given resort law, it otherwise left undefined.3 At common law official who color office obtained property another due either guilty extortion.4 many States, however, crime has been statutorily expanded include private means force, fear threats. See Cal.Penal Code 519 (1955); N.J.Stat.Ann. 2A:105 3, 2A:105—4 (1953); Wharton's Criminal Law Procedure 1396 (R. Anderson ed. 1957). Others, such retain common-law definition but statutes.5 least one does denominate any specific prohibits type activities general heading offenses against property. Ill.Rev.Stat., c. 38, 15—5 (1967). 5 Faced diversity, contend alternatively applied sense that, where have specifically extortion, alone encompassed 1952. Government, hand, suggests refer those generically extortionate, i.e., obtaining something value his consent induced wrongful use fear, threats.6 6 formed part Attorney General Kennedy's legislative proposals combat organized crime. Hearings S. 1653—1658, 1665 before Senate Judiciary Committee General's Program Curb Organized Crime Racketeering, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961). told purpose aid local enforcement instances 'top men' criminal resided conducted illegal another; creating federal interest limiting movement necessary operations, beyond reach officials could controlled. Id., at 15—17.7 concerns reflected Report favoring adoption Act. Report, after noting Committee's belief efforts enhanced Act, quoted submission letter: 'Over years ever-increasing portion our national resources diverted illicit channels. Because rackets are highly syndicates whose influence extends over National borders, Federal Government come authorities effort stem activity.' S.Rep. 644, Sess., measure passed subsequently became 1952.8 7 House version contained amendment unacceptable Department. bill defined 'unlawful activity' 'any business enterprise involving gambling, liquor * narcotics, prostitution bribery States.' However, amendment, defining liquor, connection State,' connected enumerated offenses. H.R.Rep. 966, letter Chairman Department objected eliminated coverage 'shakedown rackets,' 'shylocking' labor traditional sources income crime.9 8 primarily designed 'clandestine flow profits' 'material assistance combating pernicious undertakings cross lines,'10 reflects congressional judgment violative had become problem. response commensurate scope suggest, meaning extortion—corrupt official—be retained. If so intended, cover when extortionist also Not construction conflict desire curb merely criminals imposes penalties individual crossing lines using facilities language 'whoever' crosses uses facilities, includes persons well officials.11 9 argue Congress' define combined compels conclusion peculiar versions terminology controlling. distinction maintained between blackmail latter covering activities,12 follows charged. fallacy contention lies assumption reference incorporated labels particular eradicate denominated extortion. Indiana theft, Ind.Ann.Stat. 10—3030 (Supp.1968); Kansas terms robbery third degree, Kan.Stat.Ann. 21—529 (1964); Minnesota calls coercion, Minn.Stat. 609.27 (1967); Wisconsin believes threats, Wis.Stat. 943.30 (1965). Massachusetts, Mass.Gen.Laws Ann. 265, 25 (1956), Michigan, Mich.Comp.Laws, 750.213 (1948), Mich.Stat.Ann. 28.410 (1962), Oregon, Ore.Rev.Stat. 163.480 (1968), enacted measures similar activities; each contains title Giving controlling effect classifications result if centered deny Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, although identical 10 A striking illustration presented v. Schwartz, 398 F.2d 464 (C.A.7th Cir. 1968), pet. cert. pending, sub nom. Pyne States,* 507, 1968 Term. Schwartz codefendant participating venture allegedly participated, luring businessman demanding payoff. Utah 76—19—1 (1953), captioned statutes. support allowing can discern no reason why wish both same offense. conclude inquiry manner prohibitions involved 11 do dispute they indicted. Accepting did intend limit classifications, nevertheless insist extortionate. basis asserted extortion: former involves two parties while requires As previously discussed, revenue-producing shakedown loan-sharking called attention methods utilized generate income. These traditionally funds victim produced threats.13 Prosecutions consistently maintained. Hughes, 389 535 (C.A.2d 1968); McIntosh 385 274 (C.A.8th 1967); Marshall 355 999 (C.A.9th Cir.), denied, 815, 87 34, 17 54 (1966). Appellees, according below, attempted obtain money victims threats expose conduct. involved, encompasses generally known since virtue exposure. light we decline give unnaturally narrow reading, cf. Fabrizio, 263, 266—267, 457, 459, 351 (1966), fall within generic 12 reversed case remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 13 It ordered. 14 Reversed directions. 15 WHITE took case. Section provides: '(a) Whoever travels foreign facility commerce, including mail, to— '(1) distribute proceeds activity; '(2) commit violence '(3) promote, manage, establish, on, facilitate promotion, management, establishment, carrying activity, thereafter performs attempts perform specified subparagraphs (1), (2), (3), shall fined more $10,000 imprisoned five years, both. '(b) section (1) excise tax paid, (2) bribery, arson (1964 Supp. III.) impliedly conflicts cases prosecutions successfully having structure found Pennsylvania. Cir., 1967). Hughes prosecution North Carolina official, N.C.Gen.Stat. 66—7 (1965), second covers blackmailing, 14—118 (1953). involvement scheme participated. McIntosh, Missouri Mo.Rev.Stat. 560.130 (1959), prohibition extort. 29.360 (state auditor), 30.420 treasurer) (1959). Cf. Hobbs 1951(b)(2), another, consent, actual violence, right.' Laudani, 134 847, 851, n. (C.A.3d 1943), rev'd grounds, 320 543, 64 315, L.Ed. 300 (1944); Altmeyer, 113 854, 856 (D.C.W.D.Pa.1953); W. Clark & Marshall, Treatise Crimes 12.17 (6th 1958). Compare Ala.Code, 14, 160 (1959) (extortion), 49—50 (blackmail), Ohio Rev.Code 2919.13 (1954) 2901.38 (blackmail). Model Penal first drafted included 'Theft Intimidation.' 06.3 (Tent.Draft 2, 1954). Proposed Official Draft classifies Extortion.' 223.4 (Prop.Off.Draft 1962). comments original draft indicate authors sections encompass 206.3, Comments 1, characterized 1653, later 1952, 'one most important' proposals. 1965 added subsection (b)(2). addition prompted suggestion often collect insurance policies source revenue. H.R.Rep.No.264, 89th (1965); S.Rep.No.351, relevant letter, written Deputy White, reproduced Pollner, Robert Legislative 28 Brooklyn L.Rev. 37, 41 (1961): '(The amendment) purview extortions related four above are, historically been, involve Such racket,' (where 20% per week collected force states loans uncollectable court) removes state, prove attributable narcotics prostitution.' House-Senate Conference accepted version. H.R.Conf.Rep. 1161, S.Rep.No.644, (1961) (quoting General); H.R.Rep.No.966, General). notes (b)(2) Bribery focused corrupt 201 218; 1380—1391 Pennsylvania's renders superfluous. Several cast some doubt vitality considered synonymous. Commonwealth Burdell, 380 Pa. 43, 48, 110 A.2d 193, 196 Nathan, 93 Pa.Super. 197 (1928). interchangeably. For example, 250 (1940 ed.) 'Extortion informer'; today subtantially provision 'Blackmail.' 873. (Reporter's Note: Cert. 1062, 714, 705.) Extortion typically employed enforce usurious loans, infiltrate legitimate businesses, control unions. President's Commission Enforcement Administration Task e Report: 3—5

Category: 0