## Facts

- Federal prosecutors alleged Edmund Boyle participated in a loosely organized group (“Night Drop Crew”) that stole from banks’ night-deposit boxes.
- The group committed a series of bank thefts across multiple states during the 1990s, commonly targeting cash-filled night-deposit boxes.
- Participants typically met before thefts to plan, gather tools (e.g., crowbars, fishing gaffs, walkie-talkies), and assign roles (e.g., lookout, driver).
- The group lacked an apparent leader or hierarchy and did not operate under a long-term master plan.
- A core set of participants committed more than 30 night-deposit-box thefts from 1991 to 1994; Boyle joined by 1994 and participated in additional attempted thefts and burglaries over several years.
- In 2003, Boyle was indicted for RICO substantive and conspiracy offenses (18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c), (d)), conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371), and multiple bank burglary and attempted bank burglary counts (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)).
- After a jury trial in the Eastern District of New York, Boyle was convicted on most counts and sentenced to 151 months’ imprisonment.
- On appeal, Boyle challenged the RICO conviction, arguing the jury instructions inadequately defined an “enterprise”; the conviction was affirmed, and the Supreme Court reviewed the enterprise-instruction issue.

## Issues

1. Whether a RICO association-in-fact enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1961(4)) must have an “ascertainable structure” beyond the structure inherent in the pattern of racketeering activity.
2. Whether a jury instruction requiring an “ongoing organization” and a “continuing unit” suffices to define an association-in-fact enterprise for a § 1962(c) prosecution.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed.
- The Court held that an association-in-fact enterprise must have “structure,” but RICO does not require proof (or a jury instruction) that the enterprise has an ascertainable structural hierarchy distinct from the predicate acts.
- The Court concluded the district court’s instruction—requiring an ongoing organization (formal or informal) and that associates function as a continuing unit to achieve a common purpose—adequately captured the necessary structural features.
- A dissent argued the majority’s approach risks collapsing the enterprise element into the pattern-of-racketeering element and would require a more discernible organizational structure.

## Legal Principles

- A RICO “enterprise” includes a “group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4).
- An association-in-fact enterprise requires at least: (1) a purpose, (2) relationships among those associated, and (3) longevity sufficient to pursue the purpose.
- The enterprise need not have a hierarchical structure, chain of command, name, regular meetings, rules, dues, or other formal organizational attributes.
- The “enterprise” and “pattern of racketeering activity” are distinct elements, but the proof for each may overlap; evidence of racketeering activity may permit an inference of an association-in-fact enterprise in a given case.
- A jury instruction need not use any specific formula (including “ascertainable structure beyond the pattern” language) so long as it requires findings that establish the minimal structural features of an association-in-fact enterprise.

## Conclusion

The Court sustained Boyle’s RICO conviction, holding that an association-in-fact enterprise under RICO requires only minimal structural characteristics and that juries need not be instructed to find a separate, independently ascertainable hierarchy beyond what the racketeering evidence may show.


Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009)