## Facts

- Five brothers operated a U.S. cleaning business that relied on workers brought from Ukraine after promises of legitimate jobs and pay.
- After arrival, workers were forced to work for little or no pay and were controlled through threats, violence, and threats to family members in Ukraine.
- A federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania indicted Omelyan and Stepan Botsvynyuk (and three brothers) for RICO conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); Omelyan was also charged with Hobbs Act extortion under 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (two counts), and Stepan was charged with one Hobbs Act extortion count.
- At trial, the government withdrew one Hobbs Act count against Omelyan.
- The jury convicted Omelyan of RICO conspiracy and one Hobbs Act extortion count; it convicted Stepan of RICO conspiracy and acquitted him of Hobbs Act extortion.
- The government presented aggravating conduct (including aggravated sexual assault in furtherance of the enterprise) and Omelyan’s leadership role for purposes of raising the RICO statutory maximum, with the jury instructed to make the relevant findings.
- Post-trial, Omelyan sought acquittal or a new trial, arguing the case was time-barred because the only timely acts occurred in Ukraine and were beyond U.S. criminal jurisdiction; the district court denied relief and imposed sentence.
- Omelyan and Stepan appealed their convictions; Omelyan also appealed his sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether the RICO conspiracy and Hobbs Act prosecutions were time-barred because allegedly timely conduct occurred in Ukraine and was an impermissible extraterritorial application of the statutes.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove each defendant knowingly joined a RICO conspiracy involving forced labor and related racketeering activity.
3. Whether the district court erred by treating aggravated sexual assault and Omelyan’s leadership role as sentencing factors affecting the RICO statutory maximum, rather than as elements of the offense.
4. Whether additional alleged jury-instruction errors or sentencing errors required reversal.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed Omelyan’s convictions (RICO conspiracy and Hobbs Act extortion) and sentence and affirmed Stepan’s RICO conspiracy conviction.
- The court held the prosecution was timely because the RICO conspiracy was a continuing offense that extended into the limitations period and involved substantial conduct in the United States.
- The court rejected the claim that Ukrainian conduct made the case an impermissible extraterritorial prosecution, given the charged enterprise’s substantial domestic operations and effects.
- The court found the evidence sufficient for a rational jury to conclude each defendant knowingly agreed to participate in the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.
- The court held the jury instructions on aggravating facts and leadership role did not constitute reversible error where the jury was required to make the relevant factual findings beyond a reasonable doubt to support any increase in the statutory maximum.
- The court rejected remaining instructional challenges and upheld Omelyan’s sentence as lawful and reasonable.

## Legal Principles

- A RICO conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) is treated as a continuing offense for limitations purposes; timeliness turns on whether the conspiracy continued into the limitations period, not on isolating individual acts as separate limitations triggers.
- Substantial domestic conduct tied to the charged enterprise can support application of federal racketeering and extortion statutes even when parts of the scheme involve foreign conduct.
- A RICO conspiracy conviction requires proof that the defendant knowingly agreed to participate in the enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity; participation may be shown through coordinated operation, enforcement actions, and receipt of benefits from the scheme.
- Facts that increase a statutory maximum may be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt as sentencing-related findings consistent with Apprendi-type requirements; labeling such facts “sentencing factors” is not reversible error if the jury makes the necessary findings and the instructions correctly state the offense elements.
- Jury instructions are assessed as a whole; reversal requires a material misstatement or a meaningful risk the jury was misled.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit upheld convictions arising from a forced-labor racketeering enterprise, concluding the RICO conspiracy was timely and sufficiently supported by the evidence, that the domestic nexus defeated extraterritoriality-based limitations arguments, and that the challenged jury instructions and sentence did not warrant reversal.


United States v. Botsvynyuk, 552 F. App’x 178 (3d Cir. 2014)