Opinion ID: 683531
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: commission of predicate acts under rico statute

Text: 53 Jensen was convicted of conspiring to violate the RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(d), as alleged in Count 88 of the indictment. Jensen claims insufficiency of the evidence, contending that the law of this Circuit requires the government to prove that a RICO conspirator, and thus Jensen himself, agreed to personally commit two racketeering acts. 8 54 The court below instructed the jury that the evidence must show beyond a reasonable doubt: 55 That at the time the Defendant knowingly and wilfully agreed to join in such conspiracy, he did so with the specific intent either to personally participate in the commission of two racketeering acts, as elsewhere defined in these instructions, or that he specifically intended to otherwise participate in the affairs of the enterprise with the knowledge and intent that other members of the conspiracy would commit two or more racketeering acts as a part of a pattern of racketeering activity. 56 (emphasis added). 9 57 The government argues that we have not definitely resolved the personal agreement argument presented by Jensen, 10 and urges us to resolve it in favor of the majority of the Circuits that require only that there is evidence of an agreement that members of the conspiracy will commit two proscribed acts. 58 Faulkner controls the disposition of this insufficiency claim. There, we held that regardless whether the conviction for conspiracy to violate RICO required the defendant to agree to personally commit two predicate acts or only that he agree with the other conspirators that two predicate acts be committed pursuant to the conspiracy, the RICO conviction was supported by the jury's finding that each had committed the requisite predicate acts. 17 F.3d at 774. Likewise, in this case, the jury found Jensen guilty of four counts of wire fraud (counts 52, 53, 65, and 66). There is sufficient evidence to support the wire fraud convictions, which are racketeering acts. Jensen is not entitled to relief on this claim, and we need not resolve the personal agreement argument presented by Jensen.