Boyle v. United States

938

Syllabus

v.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit

No. 07–1309. Argued January 14, 2009—Decided June 8, 2009 The evidence at petitioner Boyle’s trial for violating the Racketeer Influ­ enced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) provision forbidding “any perso n... 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,” 18 U. S. C. § 1962(c), was sufficient to prove, among other things, that Boyle and others committed a series of bank thefts in several States; that the participants included a core group, along with others recruited from time to time; and that the core group was loosely and informally organized, lacking a leader, hierarchy, or any long-term master plan. Relying largely on United

States v.

Tur­ kette,

452 U. S. 576, 583, the District Court instructed the jury that to establish a RICO association-in-fact “enterprise,” the Government must prove (1) an ongoing organization with a framework, formal or informal, for carrying out its objectives, and (2) that association members func­ tioned as a continuing unit to achieve a common purpose. The court also told the jury that an association-in-fact’s existence is often more readily proved by what it does than by abstract analysis of its structure, and denied Boyle’s request for an instruction requiring the Government to prove that the enterprise had “an ascertainable structural hierarchy distinct from the charged predicate acts.” Boyle was convicted, and the Second Circuit affirmed.

1.

An association-in-fact enterprise under RICO must have a “struc­ ture ,” but the pertinent jury instruction need not be framed in the pre­ cise language Boyle proposes, i.

e.,

as having “an ascertainable structure beyond that inherent in the pattern of racketeering activity in which it engages.” Pp. 943–951. (a) In light of RICO’s broad statement that an enterprise “includes a n y... group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal en­ tity,” § 1961(4), and the requirement that RICO be “liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes,” note following § 1961, Turkette

ex­ plained that “enterprise” reaches “a group of persons associated to­ gether for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct,” 452

S., at 583, and “is proved by evidence of an ongoing organization,

[04-07-14 20:33:38] PAGES PGT:

939

Cite as: 556 U. S. 938 (2009) Syllabus formal or informal, and by evidence that the various associates function as a continuing unit,” ibid.

Pp. 943–945. (b) The question presented by this case is whether an association­ i n-fact enterprise must have “an ascertainable structure beyond that inherent in the pattern of racketeering activity in which it engages.” Pet. for Cert. i. This question can be broken into three parts. First, the enterprise must have a “structure” that, under RICO’s terms, has at least three features: a purpose, relationships among the associates, and longevity sufficient to permit the associates to pursue the enter­ prise’s purpose. See Turkette,

452 U. S., at 583. The instructions need not actually use the term “structure,” however, so long as the relevant point’s substance is adequately expressed. Second, because a jury must find the existence of elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring a jury to find the existence of a structure that is ascertainable

would be redundant and potentially misleading. Third, the phrase “be­ yond that inherent in the pattern of racketeering activity” is correctly interpreted to mean that the enterprise’s existence is a separate element that must be proved, not that such existence may never be inferred from the evidence showing that the associates engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity. See ibid.

Pp. 945–947. (c) Boyle’s argument that an enterprise must have structural fea­ tures additional to those that can be fairly inferred from RICO’s lan­ guage— e.

g.,

a hierarchical structure or chain of command; fixed roles for associates; and an enterprise name, regular meetings, dues, estab­ lished rules and regulations, disciplinary procedures, or induction or initiation ceremonies—has no basis in the statute’s text. As Turkette

said, an association-in-fact enterprise is simply a continuing unit that functions with a common purpose. The breadth of RICO’s “enterprise” concept is highlighted by comparing the statute with other federal laws having much more stringent requirements for targeting organized

g.,

§ 1955(b) defines an “illegal gambling business” as one that “involves five or more persons who conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct, or own all or part of such business.” Pp. 947–949. (d) Rejection of Boyle’s argument does not lead to a merger of the

§

1962(c) crime and other federal offenses. For example, proof that a defendant violated § 1955 does not necessarily establish that he con­ spired to participate in a gambling enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. Rather, that would require the prosecution to prove either that the defendant committed a pattern of § 1955 violations or a pattern of state-law gambling crimes. See § 1961(1). Pp. 949–950. (e) Because RICO’s language is clear, the Court need not reach Boyle’ s statutory purpose, legislative history, or rule-of-lenity argu­ ments. Pp. 950–951.

[04-07-14 20:33:38] PAGES PGT:

940

v.

Opinion of the Court 2.

The instructions below were correct and adequate. By explicitly tel ling jurors they could not convict on the RICO charges unless they found that the Government had proved the existence of an enterprise, the instructions made clear that this was a separate element from the pattern of racketeering activity. The jurors also were adequately told that the enterprise needed the structural attributes that may be in­ ferred from the statutory language. Finally, the instruction that an enterprise’s existence “is oftentimes more readily proven by what is [sic]

does, rather than by abstract analysis of its structure” properly conveyed Turkette ’s point that proof of a pattern of racketeering activity may be sufficient in a particular case to permit an inference of the enter­ prise’s existence. P. 951.

283 Fed. Appx. 825, affirmed.

Alito,

., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts,

and Scalia, Kennedy , Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.

Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined, post,

p.

952.

Marc Fernich argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Debra

Karlstein.

Anthony

Yang argued the cause for the United States.

With him on the brief were former Solicitor General Garre, Acting Assistant

ttorney General Friedrich, Deputy Solic­ itor General Dreeben, and Joel

Gershowitz. * Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court.

We are asked in this case to decide whether an associati on-in-fact enterprise under the Racketeer Influ­ enced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U. S. C. § 1961 et

seq., must have “an ascertainable structure beyond *Briefs of amici curiae

urging reversal were filed for the Center on the Administration of Criminal Law by Aaron

Panner, Anthony

Bar­ kow, and Rachel

Barkow;

and for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers by William

Taylor

Samuel

Buffone, Richard

Willstatter, and

errance

Reed.

Kevin

.

Roddy and

Robert Blakey

filed a brief for the National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys as amicus

curiae ur­ ging affirmance.

Beth

Brinkmann, Brian

Matsui, Robin

Conrad, and Amar

Sarwal

filed a brief for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al. as amici

curiae.

[04-07-14 20:33:38] PAGES PGT:

941

Cite as: 556 U. S. 938 (2009) Opinion of the Court that inherent in the pattern of racketeering activity in which it engages.” Pet. for Cert. i. We hold that such an enter­ prise must have a “structure” but that an instruction framed in this precise language is not necessary. The District Court properly instructed the jury in this case. We there­ fore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

The evidence at petitioner’s trial was sufficient to prove the following: Petitioner and others participated in a series of bank thefts in New York, New Jersey, Ohio, and Wisconsin during the 1990’s. The participants in these crimes included a core group, along with others who were recruited from time to time. Although the participants sometimes at­ tempted bank-vault burglaries and bank robberies, the group usually targeted cash-laden night-deposit boxes, which are often found in banks in retail areas.

Each theft was typically carried out by a group of partici­ pants who met beforehand to plan the crime, gather tools (such as crowbars, fishing gaffs, and walkie-talkies), and assign the roles that each participant would play (such as lookout and driver). The participants generally split the proceeds from the thefts. The group was loosely and infor­ mally organized. It does not appear to have had a leader or hierarchy; nor does it appear that the participants ever formulated any long-term master plan or agreement.

From 1991 to 1994, the core group was responsible for more than 30 night-deposit-box thefts. By 1994, petitioner had joined the group, and over the next five years, he partici­ pated in numerous attempted night-deposit-box thefts and at least two attempted bank-vault burglaries.

In 2003, petitioner was indicted for participation in the conduc t of the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1962(c); con­ spiracy to commit that offense, in violation of § 1962(d); con­ spiracy to commit bank burglary, in violation of § 371; and

[04-07-14 20:33:38] PAGES PGT:

942

v.

Opinion of the Court nine counts of bank burglary and attempted bank burglary, in violation of § 2113(a).

In instructing the jury on the meaning of a RICO “enter­ pr ise,” the District Court relied largely on language in United

States v.

Turkette,

452 U. S. 576 (1981). The court told the jurors that, in order to establish the existence of such an enterprise, the Government had to prove that: “(1) There [was] an ongoing organization with some sort of frame­ work, formal or informal, for carrying out its objectives; and (2) the various members and associates of the association func tion[ed] as a continuing unit to achieve a common pur­ pose.” App. 112. Over petitioner’s objection, the court also told the jury that it could “find an enterprise where an association of individuals, without structural hierarchy, form[ed] solely for the purpose of carrying out a pattern of racketeering acts” and that “[c]ommon sense suggests that the existence of an association-in-fact is oftentimes more readily proven by what is [sic]

does, rather than by abstract analysis of its structure.” Id., at 111–112.

1 1

The relevant portion of the instructions was as follows: “The term ‘enterprise’ as used in these instructions may also include a group of people associated in fact, even though this association is not rec­ ognized as a legal entity. Indeed, an enterprise need not have a name.

Thus, an enterprise need not be a form[al] business entity such as a corpo­ ration, but may be merely an informal association of individuals. A group or association of people can be an ‘enterprise’ if, among other require­ ments, these individuals ‘associate’ together for a purpose of engaging in a course of conduct. Common sense suggests that the existence of an association-in-fact is oftentimes more readily proven by what is [sic]

does, rather than by abstract analysis of its structure.

“Moreover, you may find an enterprise where an association of individu­ a ls, without

structural hierarchy,

forms solely for the purpose of carrying out a pattern of racketeering acts. Such an association of persons may be established by evidence showing an ongoing organization, formal or informal, and . . . by evidence that the people making up the association functioned as a continuing unit. Therefore, in order to establish the exist­

[04-07-14 20:33:38] PAGES PGT:

943

Cite as: 556 U. S. 938 (2009) Opinion of the Court Petitioner requested an instruction that the Government was required to prove that the enterprise “had an ongoing organization, a core membership that functioned as a contin­ uing unit, and an ascertainable structural hierarchy distinct from the charged predicate acts.” Id.,

at 95. The District Court refused to give that instruction.

Petitioner was convicted on 11 of the 12 counts against h im, including the RICO counts, and was sentenced to 151 months’ imprisonment. In a summary order, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed his conviction but vacated the sentence on a ground not relevant to the issues before us. 283 Fed. Appx. 825 (2007). The Court of Ap­ peals did not specifically address the RICO jury instructions, stating only that the arguments not discussed in the order were “without merit.” Id.,

at 826. Petitioner was then re­ sentenced, and we granted certiorari, 554 U. S. 944 (2008), to resolve conflicts among the Courts of Appeals concerning the meaning of a RICO enterprise.

RICO makes it “unlawful for any person employed by or assoc iated 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 activ­ ence of such an enterprise, the government must prove that: (1) There is an ongoing organization with some sort of framework, formal or informal, for carrying out its objectives; and (2) the various members and associ­ ates of the association function as a continuing unit to achieve a common purpose.

“Regarding ‘organization,’ i t is not necessary that the enterprise have

any particular or formal structure,

but it must have sufficient organiza­ tion that its members functioned and operated in a coordinated manner in order to carry out the alleged common purpose or purposes of the enter­ prise.” App. 111–113 (emphasis added).

[04-07-14 20:33:38] PAGES PGT:

944

v.

Opinion of the Court ity or collection of unlawful debt.” 18 U. S. C. § 1962(c) (em­ phasis added).

The statute does not specifically define the outer bound­ ar ies of the “enterprise” concept but states that the term “includes any individual, partnership, corporation, associa­ tion, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individu­ als associated in fact although not a legal entity.” § 1961(4).

2

This enumeration of included enterprises is obviously broad, encompassing “ any

. . . group of individuals associated in fact.” Ibid.

(emphasis added). The term “any” ensures that the definition has a wide reach, see, e.

g., Ali v.

Federal Bureau of Prisons,

552 U. S. 214, 218–219 (2008), and the very concept of an association in fact is expansive. In ad­ dition, the RICO statute provides that its terms are to be “liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes.” § 904(a), 84 Stat. 947, note following 18 U. S. C. § 1961; see also, e.

g., National Organization for Women, Inc.

v.

Scheidler,

510 U. S. 249, 257 (1994) (“RICO broadly defines ‘enterprise’ ”); Sedima,

v.

Imrex Co.,

497 (1985) (“RICO is to be read broadly”); Russello v.

United States,

464 U. S. 16, 21 (1983) (noting “the pattern of the RICO statute in ut ilizing terms and concepts of breadth”).

In light of these statutory features, we explained in Tur­ k ette

that “an enterprise includes any union or group of indi­ viduals associated in fact” and that RICO reaches “a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of en­ gaging in a course of conduct.” 452 U. S., at 580, 583. Such

2

This provision does not purport to set out an exhaustive definition of the term “enterprise.” Compare §§ 1961(1)–(2) (defining what the terms “racketeering activity” and “State” mean ) with §§ 1961(3)–(4) (defining what the terms “person” and “enterprise” include ). Accordingly, this provision does not foreclose the possibility that the term might include, in addition to the specifically enumerated entities, others that fall within the ordinary meaning of the term “enterprise.” See

Inc.

v.

Northwest­ ern Bell Telephone Co.,

492 U. S. 229, 238 (1989) (explaining that the term “pattern” also retains its ordinary meaning notwithstanding the statutory definition in § 1961(5)).

[04-07-14 20:33:38] PAGES PGT:

945

Cite as: 556 U. S. 938 (2009) Opinion of the Court an enterprise, we said, “is proved by evidence of an ongo­ ing organization, formal or informal, and by evidence that the various associates function as a continuing unit.” Id.,

at 583.

Notwithstanding these precedents, the dissent asserts that the definition of a RICO enterprise is limited to “busi­ nesslike entities.” See post,

at 952 (opinion of Stevens,

).

We see no basis to impose such an extratextual requirement.

3

As noted, the specific question on which we granted cer­ ti orari is whether an association-in-fact enterprise must have “an ascertainable structure beyond that inherent in the pattern of racketeering activity in which it engages.” Pet. for Cert. i. We will break this question into three parts.

First, must an association-in-fact enterprise have a “struc­ ture”? Second, must the structure be “ascertainable”?

Third, must the “structure” go “beyond that inherent in the pattern of racketeering activity” in which its members engage?

“Structure.”

e agree with petitioner that an association-in-fact enterprise must have a structure. In the sense relevant here, the term “structure” means “[t]he way in which parts are arranged or put together to form a whole”

3

The dissent claims that the “businesslike” limitation “is confirmed by the text of § 1962(c) and our decision in Reves

v.

Ernst & Young,

170 (1993).” Post,

at 953. Section 1962(c), however, states only that one may not “conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of [an] enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity.” Whatever businesslike characteristics the dissent has in mind, we do not see them in § 1962(c). Furthermore, Reves

v.

Ernst & Young,

170 (1993), is inapposite because that case turned on our interpretation of the participation requirement of § 1962, not the definition of “enter­ prise.” See id.,

at 184–185. In any case, it would be an interpretive stretch to deduce from the requirement that an enterprise must be “di­ rected” to impose the much broader, amorphous requirement that it be “businesslike.”

[04-07-14 20:33:38] PAGES PGT:

946

v.

Opinion of the Court and “[t]he interrelation or arrangement of parts in a complex entity.” American Heritage Dictionary 1718 (4th ed. 2000); see also Random House Dictionary of the English Language 1410 (1967) (defining structure to mean, among other things, “the pattern of relationships, as of status or friendship, exist­ ing among the members of a group or society”).

From the terms of RICO, it is apparent that an associati on-in-fact enterprise must have at least three struc­ tural features: a purpose, relationships among those associ­ ated with the enterprise, and longevity sufficient to permit these associates to pursue the enterprise’s purpose. As we succinctly put it in Turkette,

an association-in-fact enterprise is “a group of persons associated together for a common pur­ pose of engaging in a course of conduct.” 452 U. S., at 583.

That an “enterprise” must have a purpose is apparent from the meaning of the term in ordinary usage, i.

e.,

a “venture,” “undertaking,” or “project.” Webster’s Third New Interna­ tional Dictionary 757 (1976). The concept of “associat[ion]” requires both interpersonal relationships and a common in­ terest. See id.,

at 132 (defining “association” as “an organi­ zation of persons having a common interest”); Black’s Law Dictionary 156 (rev. 4th ed. 1968) (defining “association” as a “collection of persons who have joined together for a certain object”). Section 1962(c) reinforces this conclusion and also shows that an “enterprise” must have some longevity, since the offense proscribed by that provision demands proof that the enterprise had “affairs” of sufficient duration to per­ mit an associate to “participate” in those affairs through “a pattern of racketeering activity.” Although an association-in-fact enterprise must have these str uctural features, it does not follow that a district court must use the term “structure” in its jury instructions. A trial judge has considerable discretion in choosing the lan­ guage of an instruction so long as the substance of the rele­ vant point is adequately expressed.

[04-07-14 20:33:38] PAGES PGT:

947

Cite as: 556 U. S. 938 (2009) Opinion of the Court “Ascertainable.”

Whenever a jury is told that it must find the existence of an element beyond a reasonable doubt, that element must be “ascertainable” or else the jury could not find that it was proved. Therefore, te lling the members of the jury that they had to ascertain the existence of an “ascer­ tainable structure” would have been redundant and poten­ tially misleading.

“Beyond tha t inherent in the pattern of racketeering activity.”

This phrase may be interpreted in at least two different ways, and its correctness depends on the particular sense in which the phrase is used. If the phrase is inter­ preted to mean that the existence of an enterprise is a sepa­ rate element that must be proved, it is of course correct. As we explained in Turkette,

the existence of an enterprise is an element distinct from the pattern of racketeering activity and “proof of one does not necessarily establish the other.”

4

452 U. S., at 583.

On the other hand, if the phrase is used to mean that the existence of an enterprise may never be inferred from the evidence showing that persons associated with the enter­ prise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, it is in­ correct. We recognized in Turkette

that the evidence used to prove the pattern of racketeering activity and the evi­ dence establishing an enterprise “may in particular cases co­ alesce.” Ibid.

The crux of petitioner’s argument is that a RICO enter­ pr ise must have structural features in addition to those that

4

It is easy to envision situations in which proof that individuals engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity would not establish the existence of an enterprise. For example, suppose that several individuals, independ­ ently and without coordination, engaged in a pattern of crimes listed as RICO predicates—for example, bribery or extortion. Proof of these pat­ terns would not be enough to show that the individuals were members of an enterprise.

[04-07-14 20:33:38] PAGES PGT:

948

v.

Opinion of the Court we think can be fairly inferred from the language of the stat­ ute. Although petitioner concedes that an association-in­ fact enterprise may be an “ ‘informal’ ” group and that “not ‘much’ ” structure is needed, Reply Brief for Petitioner 24, he contends that such an enterprise must have at least some additional structural attributes, such as a structural “hierar­ chy,” “role differentiation,” a “unique modus

operandi, ”a “chain of command,” “professionalism and sophistication of organization,” “diversity and complexity of crimes,” “mem­ bership dues, rules and regulations,” “uncharged or addi­ tional crimes aside from predicate acts,” an “internal disci­ pline mechanism,” “regular meetings regarding enterprise affairs,” an “enterprise ‘name,’ ” and “induction or initiation ceremonies and rituals,” id.,

at 31–35; see also Brief for Peti­ tioner 26–28, 33; Tr. of Oral Arg. 6, 8, 17.

We see no basis in the language of RICO for the structural requirements that petitioner asks us to recognize. As we said in Turkette,

an association-in-fact enterprise is simply a continuing unit that functions with a common purpose.

Such a group need not have a hierarchical structure or a “chain of command”; decisions may be made on an ad hoc basis and by any number of methods—by majority vote, con­ sensus, a show of strength, etc. Members of the group need not have fixed roles; different members may perform differ­ ent roles at different times. The group need not have a name, regular meetings, dues, established rules and regula­ tions, disciplinary procedures, or induction or initiation cere­ monies. While the group must function as a continuing unit and remain in existence long enough to pursue a course of conduct, nothing in RICO exempts an enterprise whose asso­ ciates engage in spurts of activity punctuated by periods of quiescence. Nor is the statute limited to groups whose crimes are sophisticated, diverse, complex, or unique; for ex­ ample, a group that does nothing but engage in extortion through old-fashioned, unsophisticated, and brutal means may fall squarely within the statute’s reach.

[04-07-14 20:33:38] PAGES PGT:

949

Cite as: 556 U. S. 938 (2009) Opinion of the Court The breadth of the “enterprise” concept in RICO is high­ lighted by comparing the statute with other federal statutes that target organized criminal groups. For example, 18

S. C. § 1955(b), which was enacted together with RICO as

par t of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub.

91–452, 84 Stat. 922, defines an “illegal gambling business” as one that “involves five or more persons who conduct, fi­ nance, manage, supervise, direct, or own all or part of such business.” A “continuing criminal enterprise,” as defined in 21 U. S. C. § 848(c), must involve more than five persons who act in concert and must have an “organizer,” supervisor, or other manager. Congress included no such requirements in RICO.

Contrary to petitioner’s claims, rejection of his argument regardi ng these structural characteristics does not lead to a merger of the crime proscribed by 18 U. S. C. § 1962(c) (par­ ticipating in the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern

operating a gambling business, § 1955; conspiring to com­ mit one or more crimes that are listed as RICO predicate offenses, § 371; or conspiring to violate the RICO statute, § 1962(d).

Proof that a defendant violated § 1955 does not necessarily est ablish that the defendant conspired to participate in the affairs of a gambling enterprise through a pattern of rack­ eteering activity. In order to prove the latter offense, the prosecution must prove either that the defendant committed a pattern of § 1955 violations or a pattern of state-law gam­ bling crimes. See § 1961(1). No such proof is needed to es­ tablish a simple violation of § 1955.

Likewise, proof that a defendant conspired to commit a

predicate offense—for example, arson—does not nec­ essarily establish that the defendant participated in the af­

[04-07-14 20:33:38] PAGES PGT:

950

v.

Opinion of the Court fairs of an arson enterprise through a pattern of arson crimes. Under § 371, a conspiracy is an inchoate crime that may be completed in the brief period needed for the forma­ tion of the agreement and the commission of a single overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. See United

States v.

Feo l a,

420 U. S. 671, 694 (1975). Section 1962(c) demands much more: the creation of an “enterprise”—a group with a common purpose and course of conduct—and the actual commission of a pattern of predicate offenses.

5

Finally, while in practice the elements of a violation of §§ 1962(c) and (d) are similar, this overlap would persist even if petitioner’s conception of an association-in-fact enterprise were accepted.

Because the statutory language is clear, there is no need to reach petitioner’s remaining arguments based on statutory purpose, legislative history, or the rule of lenity. In prior cases, we have rejected similar arguments in favor of the clear but expansive text of the statute. See National

Orga­ nization for Women,

510 U. S., at 262 (“The fact that RICO has been applied in situations not expressly anticipated by Congress does not demonstrate ambiguity. It demonstrates breadth” (quoting Sedima,

473 U. S., at 499; brackets and in­ ternal quotation marks omitted)); see also Turkette,

452

S., at 589–591. “We have repeatedly refused to adopt narrow ing constructions of RICO in order to make it con­ form to a preconceived notion of what Congress intended to proscribe.” Bridge

v.

Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co.,

553

S. 639, 660 (2008); see also,

e.

g., National Organization for Women, supra,

at 252 (rejecting the argument that “RICO requires proof that either the racketeering enterprise

5

The dissent states that “[o]nly if proof of the enterprise element . . . requires evidence of activity or organization beyond that inherent in the pattern of predicate acts will RICO offenses retain an identity distinct from § 371 offenses.” Post,

at 957. This is incorrect: Even if the same evidence may prove two separate elements, this does not mean that the two elements collapse into one.

[04-07-14 20:33:38] PAGES PGT:

951

Cite as: 556 U. S. 938 (2009) Opinion of the Court or the predicate acts of racketeering were motivated by an economic purpose”);

Inc.

v.

Northwestern Bell Tele­ phone Co.,

492 U. S. 229, 244 (1989) (declining to read “an organized crime limitation into RICO’s pattern concept”); Sedima,

supra,

at 481 (rejecting the view that RICO pro­ vides a private right of action “only against defendants who had been convicted on criminal charges, and only where there had occurred a ‘racketeering injury’ ”).

The instructions the District Court Judge gave to the jury i n this case were correct and adequate. These instructions explicitly told the jurors that they could not convict on the RICO charges unless they found that the Government had proved the existence of an enterprise. See App. 111. The instructions made clear that this was a separate element from the pattern of racketeering activity.

Ibid.

The instructions also adequately told the jury that the en­ ter prise needed to have the structural attributes that may be inferred from the statutory language. As noted, the trial judge told the jury that the Government was required to prove that there was “an ongoing organization with some sort of framework, formal or informal, for carrying out its objectives” and that “the various members and associates of the association function[ed] as a continuing unit to achieve a common purpose.” Id.,

at 112.

Finally, the trial judge did not err in instructing the jury that “the existence of an association-in-fact is oftentimes more readily proven by what is [sic]

does, rather than by abstract analysis of its structure.” Id.,

at 111–112. This in­ struction properly conveyed the point we made in Turkette

that proof of a pattern of racketeering activity may be suffi­ cient in a particular case to permit a jury to infer the exist­ ence of an association-in-fact enterprise.

We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

It is so ordered.

[04-07-14 20:33:38] PAGES PGT:

952

v.

Stevens,

., dissenting Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Breyer joins, dissenting.

In my view, Congress intended the term “enterprise” as it is used in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organiza­ tions Act (RICO), 18 U. S. C. § 1961 et

seq.,

to refer only to businesslike entities that have an existence apart from the predicate acts committed by their employees or associates.

The trial judge in this case committed two significant errors relating to the meaning of that term. First, he instructed the jury that “an association of individuals, without struc­ tural hierarchy, form[ed] solely for the purpose of carrying out a pattern of racketeering acts” can constitute an enter­ prise. App. 112. And he allowed the jury to find that ele­ ment satisfied by evidence showing a group of criminals with no existence beyond its intermittent commission of rack­ eteering acts and related offenses. Because the Court’s de­ cision affirming petitioner’s conviction is inconsistent with the statutory meaning of the term enterprise and serves to expand RICO liability far beyond the bounds Congress in­ tended, I respectfully dissent.

RICO makes it “unlawful for 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 activ­ ity.” § 1962(c). The statute defines “enterprise” to include “any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals asso­ ciated in fact although not a legal entity.” § 1961(4).

It is clear from the statute and our earlier decisions con­ str uing the term that Congress used “enterprise” in these provisions in the sense of “a business organization,” Web­ ster’s Third New International Dictionary 757 (1976), rather than “a ‘venture,’ ‘undertaking,’ or ‘project,’ ” ante,

at 946

[04-07-14 20:33:38] PAGES PGT:

953

Cite as: 556 U. S. 938 (2009) Stevens,

.,

dissenting (quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, at 757). First, the terms “individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity” describe entities with for­ mal legal structures most commonly established for business purposes. § 1961(4). In context, the subsequent reference to any “union or group of individuals associated in fact al­ though

not a legal

entity ” reflects an intended commonality between the legal and nonlegal entities included in the pro­ vision.

Ibid.

(emphasis added). “The juxtaposition of the two phrases suggests that ‘associated in fact’ just means structured without the aid of legally defined structural forms such as the business corporation.” Limestone

Development Corp.

v.

Lemont, 520 F. 3d 797, 804–805 (CA7 2008).

1

That an enterprise must have businesslike characteristics is confirmed by the text of § 1962(c) and our decision in Reves

v.

Ernst & Young,

507 U. S. 170 (1993). Section 1962(c) cre­ ates liability for “conduct[ing] or participat[ing] . . . in the conduct of [an] enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of rack­ eteering activity.” In Reves,

we examined that provision’s meaning and held that, “[i]n order to ‘participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs,’ one must have some part in directing those affairs.” Id.,

at 179 (quoting § 1962(c)). It is not enough for a defendant to

1

To be sure, we have read RICO’s enterprise term broadly to include entities with exclusively noneconomic motives or wholly unlawful pur­ poses. See National

Organization for Women, Inc.

v.

Scheidler,

510

United States v.

Turkette,

581 (1981). But those holdings are consistent with the conclusion that an enterprise is a businesslike entity. Indeed, the examples of qualifying associations cited in Turkette —including loan-sharking, property-fencing, drug-trafficking, and counterfeiting operations—satisfy that criterion, as each describes an organization with continuing operations directed toward providing goods or services to its customers. See id.,

at 589–590 (citing 84 Stat. 923; 116 Cong. Rec. 592 (1970)). Similarly, the enterprise at issue in

was a nationwide network of antiabortion groups that had a lead­ ership counsel and regular conferences and whose members undertook an extensive pattern of extortion, arson, and other racketeering activity for the purpose of “shut[ting] down abortion clinics.” 510 U. S., at 253.

[04-07-14 20:33:38] PAGES PGT:

954

v.

Stevens,

.,

dissenting “carry on” or “participate in” an enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity; instead, evidence that he operated, managed, or directed those affairs is required.

See id.,

at 177–179. This requirement confirms that the en­ terprise element demands evidence of a certain quantum of businesslike organization— i.

e.,

a system of processes, deal­ ings, or other affairs that can be “directed.” Our cases also make clear that an enterprise “is an entity separate and apart from the pattern of activity in which it engages.” United

States v.

Turkette,

(1981). As with the requirement that an enterprise have businesslike characteristics, that an enterprise must have a separate existence is confirmed by § 1962(c) and Reves.

If an entity’s existence consisted solely of its members’ per­ formance of a pattern of racketeering acts, the “enterprise’s affairs” would be synonymous with the “pattern of rack­ eteering activity.” Section 1962(c) would then prohibit an individual from conducting or participating in “the conduct of [a pattern of racketeering activity] through a pattern of racketeering activity”—a reading that is unbearably redun­ dant, particularly in a case like this one in which a single pattern of activity is alleged. The only way to avoid that result is to require that an “enterprise’s affairs” be some­ thing other than the pattern of racketeering activity under­ taken by its members.

2 2

The other subsections of 18 U. S. C. § 1962 further demonstrate the businesslike nature of the enterprise element and its necessary distinct­ ness from the pattern of racketeering activity. Subsection (a) prohibits anyone who receives income derived from a pattern of racketeering activ­ ity from “us[ing] or invest[ing], directly or indirectly, any part of such income . . . in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or opera­ tion of, any enterprise.” And subsection (b) prohibits anyone from “ac­ quir[ing] or maintain[ing]” any interest in or control of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. We noted in

that the term enterprise “plays a different role in the structure” of those subsec­ tions than it does in subsection (c) because the enterprise in those subsec­ tions is the victim. 510 U. S., at 258–259. We did not, however, suggest

[04-07-14 20:33:38] PAGES PGT:

955

Cite as: 556 U. S. 938 (2009) Stevens,

.,

dissenting Recognizing an enterprise’s businesslike nature and its distinctness from the pattern of predicate acts, however, does not answer the question of what proof each element requires. In cases involving a legal entity, the matter of proving the enterprise element is straightforward, as the en­ tity’s legal existence will always be something apart from the pattern of activity performed by the defendant or his associates. Cf.

Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd.

v.

King,

533 U. S. 158, 163 (2001). But in the case of an association­ in-fact enterprise, the Government must adduce other evi­ dence of the entity’s “separate” existence and “ongoing orga­ nization.” Turkette,

452 U. S., at 583. There may be cases in which a jury can infer that existence and continuity from the evidence used to establish the pattern of racketeering activity.

Ibid.

But that will be true only when the pattern of activity is so complex that it could not be performed in the absence of structures or processes for planning or con­ cealing the illegal conduct beyond those inherent in perform­ ing the predicate acts. More often, proof of an enterprise’s separate existence will require different evidence from that used to establish the pattern of predicate acts.

Precisely what proof is required in each case is a more di fficult question, largely due to the abundant variety of RICO predicates and enterprises. Because covered enter­ prises are necessarily businesslike in nature, however, proof of an association-in-fact enterprise’s separate existence will generally require evidence of rules, routines, or processes through which the entity maintains its continuing operations and seeks to conceal its illegal acts. As petitioner suggests, this requirement will usually be satisfied by evidence that that the term has a substantially different meaning in each subsection.

To the contrary, our observation that the enterprise in subsection (c) is “the vehicle through which the unlawful pattern of racketeering activity is committed,” id.,

at 259, indicates that, as in subsections (a) and (b), the enterprise must have an existence apart from the pattern of racketeer­ ing activity.

[04-07-14 20:33:38] PAGES PGT:

956

v.

Stevens,

.,

dissenting the association has an “ascertainable structure beyond that inherent in the pattern of racketeering activity in which it engages.” Pet. for Cert. i. Examples of such structure in­ clude an organizational hierarchy, a “framework for mak­ ing decisions,” an “internal discipline mechanism,” “regular meetings,” or a practice of “reinvest[ing] . . . proceeds to promote and expand the enterprise.” Reply Brief for Pe­ titioner 31–34. In other cases, the enterprise’s existence might be established through evidence that it provides goods or services to third parties, as such an undertaking will require organizational elements more comprehensive than those necessary to perform a pattern of predicate acts.

Thus, the evidence needed to establish an enterprise will vary from case to case, but in every case the Government must carry its burden of proving that an alleged enterprise has an existence separate from the pattern of racketeering activity undertaken by its constituents.

In some respects, my reading of the statute is not very di fferent from that adopted by the Court. We agree that “an association-in-fact enterprise must have at least three structural features: a purpose, relationships among those as­ sociated with the enterprise, and longevity sufficient to per­ mit these associates to pursue the enterprise’s purpose.” Ante,

at 946. But the Court stops short of giving con­ tent to that requirement. It states only that RICO “de­ mands proof that the enterprise had ‘affairs’ of sufficient du­ ration to permit an associate to ‘participate’ in those affairs through ‘a pattern of racketeering activity,’ ” before conclud­ ing that “[a] trial judge has considerable discretion in choos­ ing the language of an instruction” and need not use the term “structure.” Ibid . While I agree the word “structure” is not talismanic, I would hold that the instructions must con­ vey the requirement that the alleged enterprise have an ex­ istence apart from the alleged pattern of predicate acts.

[04-07-14 20:33:38] PAGES PGT:

957

Cite as: 556 U. S. 938 (2009) Stevens,

.,

dissenting The Court’s decision, by contrast, will allow juries to infer the existence of an enterprise in every case involving a pattern of racketeering activity undertaken by two or more associates.

By permitting the Government to prove both elements w ith the same evidence, the Court renders the enterprise requirement essentially meaningless in association-in-fact cases. It also threatens to make that category of § 1962(c) offenses indistinguishable from conspiracies to commit predi­ cate acts, see § 371, as the only remaining difference is § 1962(c)’s pattern requirement. The Court resists this criti­ cism, arguing that § 1962(c) “demands much more” than the inchoate offense defined in § 371.

Ante,

at 950. It states that the latter “may be completed in the brief period needed for the formation of the agreement and the commission of a single overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy,” whereas the former requires the creation of “a group with a common purpose and course of conduct—and the actual commission of a pattern of predicate offenses.” Ibid.

Given that it is also unlawful to conspire to violate § 1962(c), see § 1962(d), this comment provides no assurance that RICO and § 371 offenses remain distinct. Only if proof of the enterprise ele­ ment—the “group with a common purpose and course of con­ duct”—requires evidence of activity or organization beyond that inherent in the pattern of predicate acts will RICO of­ fenses retain an identity distinct from § 371 offenses.

This case illustrates these concerns. The trial judge in­ str ucted the jury that an enterprise need have only the degree of organization necessary “for carrying out its objec­ tives” and that it could “find an enterprise where an associa­ tion of individuals, without structural hierarchy, forms solely for the purpose of carrying out a pattern of racketeering acts.” App. 112.

3

These instructions were plainly defi­ cient, as they did not require the Government to prove that

3

For the full text of the relevant portion of the instructions, see ante,

at 942–943, n. 1.

[04-07-14 20:33:38] PAGES PGT:

958

v.

Stevens,

.,

dissenting the alleged enterprise had an existence apart from the pat­ tern of predicate acts. Instead, they permitted the Gov­ ernment’s proof of the enterprise’s structure and continuing nature—requirements on which all agree—to consist only of evidence that petitioner and his associates performed a pat­ tern of racketeering activity.

Petitioner’s requested instruction would have required the jury to find that the alleged enterprise “had an ongoing orga­ nization, a core membership that functioned as a continuing unit, and an ascertainable structural hierarchy distinct from the charged predicate acts.” Id.,

at 95. That instruction does not precisely track my understanding of the statute; although evidence of “structural hierarchy” can evidence an enterprise, it is not necessary to establish that element.

Nevertheless, the proposed instruction would have better di­ rected the jury to consider whether the alleged enterprise possessed the separate existence necessary to expose peti­ tioner to liability under § 1962(c), and the trial judge should have considered an instruction along those lines.

The trial judge also erred in finding the Government’s evi­ dence in this case sufficient to support petitioner’s RICO convictions. Petitioner was alleged to have participated and conspired to participate in the conduct of an enterprise’s af­ fairs through a pattern of racketeering activity consisting of one act of bank robbery and three acts of interstate transpor­ tation of stolen funds.

Id.,

at 15–19. The “primary goals” of the alleged enterprise “included generating money for its members and associates through the commission of criminal activity, including bank robberies, bank burglaries and inter­ state transportation of stolen money.” Id.,

at 14. And its modus operandi

was to congregate periodically when an as­ sociate had a lead on a night-deposit box that the group could break into. Whoever among the associates was available would bring screwdrivers, crowbars, and walkie-talkies to the location. Some acted as lookouts, while others retrieved the money. When the endeavor was successful, the par­

[04-07-14 20:33:38] PAGES PGT:

959

Cite as: 556 U. S. 938 (2009) Stevens,

.,

dissenting ticipants would split the proceeds. Thus, the group’s pur­ pose and activities, and petitioner’s participation therein, were limited to sporadic acts of taking money from bank de­ posit boxes. There is no evidence in RICO’s text or history that Congress intended it to reach such ad hoc associations of thieves.

Because the instructions and evidence in this case did not satisfy the requirement that an alleged enterprise have an existence separate and apart from the pattern of activity in which it engages, I respectfully dissent.