## Facts

- A federal grand jury indicted Novia Turkette, Jr. and others in a nine-count indictment alleging an organized group involved in narcotics trafficking, arson-related insurance fraud using the mails, bribery of police, and corruption of state court proceedings.
- Count Nine charged a conspiracy to conduct and participate in the affairs of an “enterprise” through a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), predicated on conduct described in § 1962(c).
- The indictment described the enterprise as an association-in-fact: a group of individuals joined for multiple criminal purposes, including drug distribution, arsons, mail fraud against insurers, bribery, and influencing court outcomes.
- After a six-week jury trial featuring evidence about the organization’s structure and multiple criminal acts, Turkette was convicted on all counts.
- The district court imposed concurrent prison terms, including 20 years on the RICO conspiracy count and concurrent terms on substantive counts, plus a fine.
- The First Circuit reversed the RICO conviction, ruling that RICO’s “enterprise” concept was limited to legitimate businesses infiltrated by racketeers and did not cover an association performing only illegal acts.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit conflict on whether RICO reaches purely criminal organizations.

## Issues

1. Whether “enterprise,” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) and used in 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and (d), includes a wholly illegitimate association-in-fact, or is limited to legitimate entities infiltrated by racketeers.
2. Whether, in a prosecution under § 1962(c) (and related conspiracy under § 1962(d)), the government must prove the existence of an enterprise separate from the pattern of racketeering activity.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the First Circuit.
- The Court held that RICO’s “enterprise” includes both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, including a wholly criminal association-in-fact.
- The Court held that § 1962(c) requires proof of (1) an enterprise and (2) a connected pattern of racketeering activity; the enterprise is an entity distinct from the pattern of acts.
- The case was remanded with the RICO conviction reinstated under the correct interpretation of “enterprise.”

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4), an “enterprise” includes “any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity,” which is not limited to lawful business organizations.
- RICO does not impose a requirement that an enterprise be legitimate or that racketeers must infiltrate a lawful business before § 1962(c) and (d) apply.
- For § 1962(c), the government must prove both the existence of an enterprise and a pattern of racketeering activity connected to the enterprise; the enterprise is separate from the racketeering pattern.
- Legislative history emphasizing infiltration of legitimate businesses cannot narrow statutory text that, by its terms, reaches illegitimate enterprises.
- Applying RICO to illegitimate enterprises neither makes statutory provisions superfluous nor creates structural inconsistencies within RICO.

## Conclusion

The Court held that RICO’s “enterprise” element covers purely criminal associations-in-fact and that a § 1962(c) prosecution (and related § 1962(d) conspiracy) requires proof of an enterprise that exists as an entity distinct from the pattern of racketeering acts carried out through it.


United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981)