Opinion ID: 418131
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Investment Count

Text: 67 Cauble next contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict on the Sec. 1962(a) count. He contends that the government failed to prove that he gained income from a pattern of racketeering activity. He also maintains that the government failed to prove that particular funds invested in the enterprise were derived from a particular unlawful transaction in which he was culpably involved. 68 Cauble argues that he derived no income because money advanced or loaned to the smugglers and later repaid was not income. We need not decide the validity of this contention 66 because a reasonable juror might have concluded that Cauble received income based on the substantial cash deposits to Cauble Enterprises' special account during 1977 and 1978. 69 Cauble also argues that the government must do more to support a Sec. 1962(a) conviction than prove that the income was derived from a pattern of racketeering activity. He contends that RICO's legislative history demonstrates that Congress intended to require the government to trace illicitly-derived funds from a particular unlawful act to the enterprise. 70 Cauble relies on the Justice Department's observation on a related bill that tracing of funds known to be derived from racketeering activities to their eventual investment in a business enterprise [is required] in establishing a violation of subsection (a) of Section 1962. 67 He also relies on a law review article by one of RICO's primary sponsors stating only one of the three prohibitions in Title IX requires tracing of funds. 68 71 We do not impart to the word tracing as used in these statements the same precision as does Cauble. If the prosecution had demonstrated that Cauble made substantial, unexplained cash deposits into his personal account but not that the money was ever used in any way related to Cauble Enterprises, it would have failed to meet its burden of tracing. 69 But the prosecution need prove only that illegally derived funds flowed into the enterprise; 70 it need not follow a trail of specific dollars from a particular criminal act. 72 The government presented evidence of large cash deposits to Cauble Enterprises' account and of marijuana smuggling in which Cauble and Cauble Enterprises' employees played a role. The jury might reasonably have inferred that there was a sufficient nexus between the money and the enterprise to satisfy the investment requirement of Sec. 1962(a). 71