Opinion ID: 869748
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: RICO Conviction (Count 1)

Text: Ciavarella was convicted of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) based on two predicate acts—honest services wire fraud based on three wire transfers on January 21, 24, and 28, 2003 (Racketeering Act One) and money laundering conspiracy (Racketeering Act Thirteen). The January 2003 wire transfers involved the $997,600 payment from Mericle to Ciavarella and Conahan. In essence, Ciavarella contends that the RICO conviction cannot be sustained because the 2003 payment from Mericle did not 17 We affirm the jury‟s verdict when there is substantial evidence that, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, would permit a reasonable finder of fact to convict. Wright, 665 F.3d at 567. A defendant raising a sufficiency of the evidence challenge has an exceedingly high burden. Id. 43 constitute a bribe given the jury acquitted him of the bribery counts related to Mericle‟s 2005 and 2006 payments and because Mericle testified that the 2003 payment was also a legitimate referral fee. Absent evidence that the January 2003 payment was a bribe, the racketeering predicate act of honest services wire fraud cannot be sustained. A payment constitutes a bribe “as long as the essential intent—a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act—exists.” United States v. Kemp, 500 F.3d 257, 282 (3d Cir. 2007). The Government is not required to prove that the payments were intended “to prompt a specific official act. . . . [Rather,] payments may be made with the intent to retain the official‟s services on an „as needed‟ basis, so that whenever the opportunity presents itself the official will take specific action on the payor‟s behalf.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, the Government presented the following evidence to support the jury‟s conclusion that the payment Ciavarella received from Mericle in 2003 constituted a bribe: the 2003 payments were transferred through multiple individuals to a company owned by Conahan, which ultimately transferred the funds to Ciavarella and Conahan; Ciavarella agreed to split the fee with Conahan because Conahan had done much of the work to confer the benefit on Mericle; Powell treated the payment as income for tax purposes; Conahan‟s company falsely reported the funds in the company books as a consultant‟s fee; Ciavarella worked to close down the existing county facility and move its best employees to PACC; Conahan, with Ciavarella‟s knowledge, signed a lease to assist Powell in securing financing; Ciavarella and Conahan failed to disclose the conflicts of 44 interest in civil cases before them; and Ciavarella and Conahan mailed false financial disclosure statements. While Ciavarella and Mericle testified that the payment was a referral fee and not a bribe, the jury was free to disbelieve them. Thus, there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the 2003 payment from Mericle constituted a bribe to support the predicate act for honest services wire fraud and to sustain the RICO conviction. Ciavarella fails to meet his high burden.