## Facts

- Texas 1845, LLC acquired two distressed loans guaranteed by Daniel Dvorkin and his company, Dvorkin Holdings, LLC.
- After Dvorkin failed to repay, Texas 1845 sued and obtained an Illinois judgment exceeding $8 million against Dvorkin.
- Texas 1845’s manager was Larry Meyer, the intended target of the killing.
- On April 5, 2012, Dvorkin contacted Robert Bevis, a firearms dealer, and said he was willing to pay $50,000 to have Meyer murdered.
- Bevis told Dvorkin that he knew someone in Florida who could do the job; this was false and was said to end the conversation.
- Dvorkin provided Bevis with information to locate Meyer, including a printout of Meyer’s LinkedIn profile.
- Bevis contacted law enforcement and became a cooperating witness.
- Between April 18 and May 7, Dvorkin and Bevis had recorded calls and meetings discussing the killing, including timing, logistics, and the price.
- On May 7, Dvorkin told Bevis he had hired a different person to commit the murder for $20,000.
- A federal grand jury charged Dvorkin with five counts under 18 U.S.C. § 1958 (using or causing another to use a facility of interstate commerce with intent that a murder be committed for hire) and one count under 18 U.S.C. § 373(a) (solicitation of a crime of violence).
- A jury convicted Dvorkin on all counts in the Northern District of Illinois, and he appealed, arguing the evidence did not prove the required intent and that no solicitation occurred because there was no economic agreement with Bevis.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Dvorkin used (or caused the use of) a facility of interstate commerce with intent that Meyer be murdered for payment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Dvorkin, with intent that Meyer be murdered, solicited Bevis (or another) to commit a violent federal crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 373(a).
3. Whether § 373 solicitation (and the related intent showing) required proof of a completed, contract-like agreement on price or that the intermediary genuinely intended to arrange the murder.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed Dvorkin’s convictions on all counts.
- The court held that a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Dvorkin intended to have Meyer murdered for payment and used interstate facilities (including telephone communications) in furtherance of that plan, satisfying § 1958.
- The court also held the evidence supported the § 373 conviction because Dvorkin’s recorded statements and actions amounted to a serious request to bring about Meyer’s murder, and the statute does not require acceptance, completion, or a finalized economic bargain.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1958, the government must prove use (or causing use) of a facility of interstate commerce with intent that a murder be committed in exchange for something of pecuniary value.
- Telephone calls can qualify as use of a facility of interstate commerce for § 1958 purposes.
- For § 1958, the relevant mental state is the defendant’s intent that a murder occur for payment; the other participant’s secret lack of intent (for example, acting as a cooperator) does not defeat liability.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 373(a), solicitation requires proof that the defendant intended another person commit a violent federal offense and knowingly asked, urged, or sought to induce that person to commit it.
- Solicitation is complete when the request is made with the required intent; it does not require the solicited person’s agreement, a completed plan, or completion of the crime.
- A contract-style meeting of the minds on price is not an element of federal solicitation; negotiations and discussions about payment may still show intent and a serious effort to procure the crime.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit affirmed Dvorkin’s murder-for-hire and solicitation convictions because the recorded communications, payment discussions, and provision of identifying information permitted the jury to find that he seriously intended Meyer’s death for payment and took steps to procure it, even though the intermediary was cooperating with police and no final price agreement was reached.


United States v. Dvorkin, 799 F.3d 867 (2015)