Opinion ID: 787192
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Associate Liability

Text: 80 Autiello, and Corrente by adoption, argues that the court's instructions on associate liability under RICO failed to comply with the standard set out by the Supreme Court in Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170, 113 S.Ct. 1163, 122 L.Ed.2d 525 (1993). The Court in Reves created the operation management test for determining RICO associate liability. In order to have taken part in, or associated with the conduct of an enterprise, an associate must have had some part in directing those affairs of the enterprise. Id. at 177-78, 113 S.Ct. 1163. The Court also stated that an enterprise is operated not just by upper management but also by lower-rung participants in the enterprise who are under the direction of upper management. Id. at 184, 113 S.Ct. 1163. The Court further elucidated: 81 Of course, the word participate makes clear that RICO liability is not limited to those with primary responsibility for the enterprise's affairs, just as the phrase directly or indirectly makes clear that RICO liability is not limited to those with a formal position in the enterprise, but some part in directing the enterprise's affairs is required. The operation or management test expresses this requirement in a formulation that is easy to apply. 82 Id. at 179, 113 S.Ct. 1163. 83 Autiello and Corrente argue that the district court watered down the government's burden of proof in its jury instruction on associate RICO liability. 11 Specifically, they claim that the instructions permitted conviction for performing acts without control over some part of the direction of the enterprise. 84 We find no merit in defendants' objection. The instructions did not misstate the law; in fact, they reflected Reves nearly verbatim. Defendants argue that the buzz word on associate liability is that an associate direct or be integral to the affairs of the enterprise. The crucial words, however, are operation and management, which effectively communicate to a jury that in order for a defendant to have been an associate of the RICO enterprise, his participation needs to have had an element of direction of the enterprise's affairs. Id. at 178, 113 S.Ct. 1163; United States v. Marino, 277 F.3d 11, 33 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 948, 122 S.Ct. 2639, 153 L.Ed.2d 819 (2002); United States v. Oreto, 37 F.3d 739, 750 (1st Cir.1994). The court more than sufficiently accounted for this requirement by instructing that the defendant must have played some part in the operation or management of the enterprise. 85 In general, we have fashioned the Reves operation or management test in accordance with the breadth with which we must construe RICO: 86 The requirement of association with the enterprise is not strict. The RICO net is woven tightly to trap even the smallest fish, those peripherally involved with the enterprise. The RICO statute seeks to encompass people who are merely associated with the enterprise. The defendant need only be aware of at least the general existence of the enterprise named in the indictment, and know about its related activities. 87 Marino, 277 F.3d at 33 (citations and internal quotations omitted). Hence, as an evidentiary matter, the government presented more than enough to establish that, if there was an enterprise, the two, at various times, played important roles in the direction and supervision of the enterprise's operations. Neither was merely peripherally involved with the enterprise. The direct testimony of Kenneth Rocha demonstrated that not only was Autiello aware of the general existence of the enterprise, but that he was central to furthering the goals of the enterprise, specifically as the collection agent for Corrente in obtaining payments from the Tow List members. His participation in the Maggiacomo Job scheme again evinced his awareness of the general enterprise as well as his direct involvement in the direction and management of the enterprise. As for Corrente, we need not rehash the evidence that amply establishes his role in the enterprise. The fact that he was Cianci's right-hand man, in addition to evidence specifically showing his directorial or supervisory involvement in individual racketeering acts, puts him in the heartland of associate RICO liability as set out in Reves. 88