Opinion ID: 654260
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Pattern of Racketeering Requirement

Text: 58 Section 1962(c) provides that it is unlawful for 59 any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity.... 60 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c). A violation of section 1962(c) requires (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity. Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479, 496, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985). 61 First, Netters argues that because he did not violate California Penal Code Sec. 68, there are no predicate acts; therefore, there is no pattern of racketeering activity to support his conviction. California Penal Code Sec. 68 provides: 62 Sec. 68. Bribes; executive or ministerial officers, employees, or appointees; asking or receiving; punishment 63 Every executive or ministerial officer, employee or appointee of the State of California, county or city therein or political subdivision thereof, who asks, receives, or agrees to receive, any bribe, upon any agreement or understanding that his vote, opinion, or action upon any matter then pending, or which may be brought before him in his official capacity, shall be influenced thereby, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three or four years; and, in addition thereto, forfeits his office, and is forever disqualified from holding any office in this state. 64 (Emphasis added). Netters maintains that he could not have violated section 68 because he had no official capacity or officially defined duties as a legislative aide. 65 The plain language of the statute makes it clear that section 68 may be applied to Netters as an employee ... of the State of California. Moreover, California courts have rejected lack of official capacity as a defense to the crime of bribery under section 68. SeePeople v. Megladdery, 40 Cal.App.2d 748, 106 P.2d 84, 102 (1940) (private secretary to the governor); see alsoPeople v. Silver, 75 Cal.App.2d 1, 170 P.2d 80, 82 (1946) (acting investigator of the state board of architectural examiners). Thus, Netters, as a legislative aide, could be found guilty of violating section 68. 66 There was extensive evidence that Netters used his duties and responsibilities as a legislative aide to move two special interest bills through the California legislature in exchange for payments from the fictitious corporations, in violation of section 68. The Government proved the requisite number of predicate acts of bribery necessary to establish the existence of a pattern of racketeering activity. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961(5) (pattern of racketeering activity requires at least two acts of racketeering activity). 67 Second, Netters asserts that the Government failed to prove the existence of a pattern of racketeering activity because this case involved only one activity--the introduction of special interest legislation. He contends that the fact that there may have been two statutory offenses is irrelevant. Netters' contention that because all of the predicate acts related to a single scheme, there could be no pattern is simply meritless. See United States v. Kirk, 844 F.2d 660, 663-64 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 890, 109 S.Ct. 222, 102 L.Ed.2d 213 (1988). 68 Third, Netters argues that even if there were two racketeering acts, there is no pattern because there was no threat of continuing activity. The Supreme Court has concluded that although two predicate acts are needed for a pattern, Congress had a fairly flexible concept of a pattern in mind. H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 239, 109 S.Ct. 2893, 2900, 106 L.Ed.2d 195 (1989). The Government must show that the racketeering predicates are related, and that they amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity. Seeid. (emphasis in original). 69 Racketeering predicates are related if they have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events. Seeid. at 240, 109 S.Ct. at 2901; Ticor Title Ins. Co. v. Florida, 937 F.2d 447, 450 (9th Cir.1991). In this case, the predicate state law bribery crimes were related as they had the same purpose--obtaining Netters' agreement to use his duties and responsibilities as a legislative aide to influence the legislative process. They also shared similar results, participants, and methods of commission. SeeDischner, 974 F.2d at 1510 (evidence that defendants repeatedly solicited and accepted bribes in connection with public matters, and received substantial kickbacks from companies for steering public works contracts in their direction, satisfied RICO's pattern requirement; the consistency of their methods, purposes, results, and the participants involved made the predicate acts sufficiently related). 70 With respect to the continuity requirement, the Supreme Court has explained: 71 Continuity is both a closed- and open-ended concept, referring either to a closed period of repeated conduct, or to past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition.... A party alleging a RICO violation may demonstrate continuity over a closed period by proving a series of related predicates extending over a substantial period of time. Predicate acts extending over a few weeks or months and threatening no future criminal conduct do not satisfy this requirement: Congress was concerned in RICO with long-term criminal conduct. [When] a RICO action [is] brought before continuity can be established in this way ... liability depends on whether the threat of continuity is demonstrated. 72 H.J., Inc., 492 U.S. at 241-42, 109 S.Ct. at 2902. However, as Justice Scalia pointed out in his concurrence, it would be absurd to say that at least a few months of racketeering activity ... is generally for free, as far as RICO is concerned. Id. at 254, 109 S.Ct. at 2908 (Scalia, J., concurring). If the predicate acts involve a distinct threat of long-term racketeering activity, either implicit or explicit, a RICO pattern has been established. Id. at 242, 109 S.Ct. at 2902. 73 In this case, the evidence showed that Netters accepted a series of improper payments over a two-year period consistent with the closed-ended concept of continuity. SeeDischner, 974 F.2d at 1507 (3 years); Kirk, 844 F.2d at 661 (2 years); United Energy Owners v. United Energy Management, 837 F.2d 356, 359 (9th Cir.1988) (15 months). Moreover, the nature of his crime and his statements suggest the existence of a distinct threat of long-term racketeering activity. SeeDischner, 974 F.2d at 1510-11 (in political corruption cases, activities such as receiving bribes and kickbacks feed on themselves so as to become a pattern). 74 The evidence demonstrated that the predicate state law bribery crimes were both related and amounted to or posed a threat of continued criminal activity. Thus, Netters' third attack on the Government's proof of a pattern of racketeering activity fails.