Opinion ID: 403740
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: godoy's appeal.

Text: 7
8 Godoy seeks reversal of his conviction on the sole ground that his indictment was void. Of the seventeen grand jurors voting the indictment, only ten had attended all the evidentiary sessions. Godoy contends that the remaining seven were not legally qualified to vote the return of the indictment because they were not fully informed. He concludes that his indictment was not returned upon the concurrence of 12 or more jurors, as required by Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(f), and that it was therefore void. 9 Godoy relied on the short-lived decision of the district court in United States v. Leverage Funding Systems, Inc., 637 F.2d 645 (9th Cir.), rev'g 478 F.Supp. 799 (C.D.Cal.1979), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 961, 101 S.Ct. 3110, 69 L.Ed.2d 972 (1980). There, we stated: 10 Under the Fifth Amendment and Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(a) and 6(f), an indictment is valid if (1) the grand jury returning the indictment consisted of between 16 and 23 jurors, (2) every grand jury session was attended by at least 16 jurors, and (3) at least 12 jurors vote to indict. Nothing requires that every juror voting to indict attend every session. 11 Id. at 649. Godoy's indictment satisfied these criteria in all respects and was therefore valid. The conviction is affirmed. 12
13 Godoy challenges the forfeiture of the Van Nuys and Mission Hills properties he owns. The Van Nuys property includes a building leased to two different businesses: one a camera shop, the other a pharmacy. The Mission Hills property is a corner lot and building leased to six different businesses, including a liquor store, a television repair shop, and a small market. 14 RICO requires forfeiture of any interest in ... any enterprise acquired through the investment of income derived ... from a pattern of racketeering activity. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(a), 1963(a). 2 The only issue is whether Godoy's ownership of the two pieces of commercial real estate constitutes an interest in any enterprise. 3 We hold that it does. 15 We must examine congressional intent in order to determine the scope of the term enterprise. Both the language and the legislative history of RICO suggest that Congress intended interest in any enterprise to include ownership of income-producing commercial real estate. As a start, Congress defined enterprise broadly, including any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) (1976). In addition, Congress included a liberal construction clause in the Act. 18 U.S.C. § 1961 note (1976) (The provisions of (RICO) shall be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes.). 16 Furthermore, Congress was aware that organized crime had invested extensively in real estate. In its report, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary listed real estate among the many industries invaded by organized crime. S.Rep.No. 617, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 76-77 (1969). That report also referred to an earlier Senate report which noted organized crime ownership of large amounts of real estate, including commercial rental property. Id. at 77; S.Rep.No.307, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. 34 (1951) (Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Organized Crime in Interstate Commerce). Given this awareness, if Congress did not wish the RICO forfeiture provisions to apply to ownership of commercial real estate, we would expect specific statutory exclusion of this type of investment. 4 17 Godoy's only argument rests on our decision in United States v. Marubeni America Corp., 611 F.2d 763 (9th Cir. 1980). There the Government sought forfeiture of the uninvested gains from the defendant's racketeering. We denied the request because such proceeds have to be invested in an enterprise before they can be forfeited. Id. at 767. Thus, we had no occasion to interpret the meaning of interests in any enterprise, the issue now before us. 18 We conclude that the district court correctly ordered the forfeiture of Godoy's interests in the Van Nuys and Mission Hills properties. 5 19