Circuit split · criminal law
Whether RICO's interstate-commerce element requires proof that an enterprise engaged only in noneconomic criminal activity substantially affected interstate commerce, or whether the ordinary RICO commerce requirements suffice
1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.
- United States v. Nascimento491 F3D 25
First Circuit Court of Appeals · July 2, 2007
“Although we are reluctant to create a circuit split, we conclude, after grappling with this difficult question, that the normal requirements of the RICO statute apply to defendants involved with enterprises that are engaged only in noneconomic criminal activity.” — Creates a split
Empirical analysis of this case →
The provision at issue
18 U.S.C. § 1962 — Prohibited activities
“(a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, …”Read the full section →
The other side of the split
Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.
- On the other side · 6th Cir.Waucaush v. United States380 F.3d 251
What the split turns on
- Statutes:
- 18 U.S.C. § 1962
- Doctrines & tests:
- RICO 'affecting commerce' requirement
Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.