Opinion ID: 789971
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: to collect or attempt to collect any extension of credit, or

Text: 18 (2) to punish any person for the nonrepayment thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. 19 An extension of credit is defined to mean to make or renew any loan, or enter into any agreement, tacit or express, whereby the repayment or satisfaction of any debt or claim, whether acknowledged or disputed, valid or invalid, and however arising, may or will be deferred. 18 U.S.C. § 891(1). Because of the disjunctive or, if the extortionate collection of a debt involves a loan, there is no additional requirement that the parties agree to defer repayment of the loan. 20 The statute does not define the term loan. The term is generally defined as [d]elivery by one party to and receipt by another party of a sum of money upon agreement, express or implied, to repay it with or without interest. Black's Law Dictionary 936 (6th ed.1990). 21 Bruce argues that the evidence at trial clearly showed that there was no loan, arguing that he and Mussare merely gave $115 to the victim for the purchase of Marijuana, which the victim never produced. (Appellant's Br. at 11.) Bruce cites no evidence for the proposition that the money given was not a loan, however. At trial, Taylor testified that I borrowed-asked to borrow $115 from J.J. Mussare, and it was given to Jim Kane, and then given to me to buy heroin with. (App. at 18.) Taylor testified that he understood that the money was to be repaid, either in marijuana or in cash. ( Id. at 20.) It also appears that Bruce and Mussare knew that Kane and Taylor intended to use the money to buy heroin, resell it for profit, and then buy marijuana with the proceeds. ( Id. ) Although Bruce now asserts that the money was more akin to an investment than a loan, because Taylor received money from Bruce and Mussare and understood that the money was to be paid back, a reasonable jury could have found that the money was a loan. 22 We observe that, even if a reasonable jury could not find that a loan existed, it nevertheless could reasonably conclude that there was an agreement to defer repayment of the debt Kane and Taylor owed to Bruce and Mussare. Taylor received the money on Saturday, January 22. Bruce and Mussare remained at Kane's apartment until Sunday morning, while Kane and Taylor each left the apartment, first to purchase heroin and then to try to sell it for profit. Bruce and Mussare left the apartment Sunday morning, but returned that evening for their marijuana. At that point, Kane told them that he had been unable to resell the heroin, and that he had neither the marijuana he had promised them nor the money to repay them. Bruce and Mussare again left without incident. It was not until Monday evening that Bruce and Mussare assaulted Taylor. From this sequence of events, a reasonable jury could find an agreement to defer repayment of the debt. See United States v. DiPasquale, 740 F.2d 1282, 1287 (3d Cir.1984) (A tacit agreement may be implied from the circumstances surrounding the creation of the debt.). 4 As such, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that an extension of credit had been made, either because the initial payment was a loan or because an agreement to postpone the payment of a claimed debt could be inferred.