## Facts

- A series of violent incidents occurred in Manhattan’s Chinatown in 2001, including robberies and related firearm use.
- Chen Zi Xiang and Lin Xian Wu were charged, tried, and convicted on multiple counts, including Hobbs Act robbery and robbery conspiracies, Hobbs Act extortion and extortion conspiracy, and several 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) firearm counts.
- The extortion counts were based on an incident involving Chen Tin Hua, a shareholder in an illegal gambling parlor.
- A caller demanded Hua place $10,000 in a red envelope for pickup; Hua said he had no money and hung up.
- Later that day, Chen, Lin, and two codefendants confronted Hua, pointed guns at him, and again demanded $10,000; Hua again said he had no money.
- During the confrontation, Hua was assaulted, and one assailant took Hua’s necklace before the group fled.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Hobbs Act extortion and conspiracy to commit extortion under 18 U.S.C. § 1951 where the victim refused to pay demanded money and property was taken by force.
2. Whether a § 924(c) conviction predicated on the extortion offenses could stand if the extortion and extortion-conspiracy convictions were reversed for legal insufficiency.

## Decision

- The court reversed the extortion conspiracy (Count One) and extortion (Count Two) convictions for insufficient evidence.
- The court held the government failed to prove Hobbs Act extortion’s requirement that defendants obtained property “with [the victim’s] consent” induced by force, violence, or fear.
- The court reversed the related § 924(c) conviction (Count Three) to the extent it was predicated on the extortion offenses.
- The court affirmed the remaining robbery, robbery-conspiracy, and other § 924(c) convictions.
- The court remanded for resentencing on the affirmed counts in light of the reversals.

## Legal Principles

- Hobbs Act extortion requires proof of “obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear.” 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2).
- “Consent” is a substantive element distinguishing extortion (consensual transfer induced by fear) from robbery (forcible taking against the victim’s will).
- Evidence that a victim refused to pay demanded money, combined with a direct forcible taking of other property during an armed assault, supports robbery-type conduct but does not establish completed Hobbs Act extortion.
- A § 924(c) conviction must be supported by a valid predicate offense; if the predicate extortion convictions are reversed for insufficient evidence, a firearm conviction premised on those predicates cannot stand.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit required strict proof of Hobbs Act extortion’s “with consent” element and reversed extortion-related convictions where the record showed an unsuccessful demand for money followed by a forcible taking, then vacated the derivative § 924(c) count and remanded for resentencing on the remaining affirmed convictions.


United States v. Zhou, 428 F.3d 361 (2d Cir. 2005)