Opinion ID: 463821
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: RICO Forfeiture Instruction

Text: 72 The jury concluded that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1963(a) and Rule 31(a), Fed.R.Crim.P., Isaacs's interest in the She Club was subject to forfeiture. Isaacs contends that the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury that only the assets of the alleged enterprise, Lee & M, Inc., d/b/a Gentlemen's Quarters, d/b/a She Club, were subject to forfeiture. 73 Isaacs does not elaborate on his theory under this issue. We surmise from his argument during the forfeiture proceedings that since the basement of the She Club was rented to other businesses as storage area, and not used as a part of the nightclub, he deems the basement to be exempt from forfeiture. 74 The law is clear, however, that the jury is not required to select only certain of an enterprise's assets for forfeiture. A defendant's conviction under the RICO statute subjects all his interests in the enterprise to forfeiture regardless of whether those assets were themselves 'tainted' by use in connection with the racketeering activity. United States v. Cauble, 706 F.2d 1322, 1359 (5th Cir.1983). The district court did not err in instructing the jury on RICO forfeiture.