Fill and Sign the Jury Instruction Interstate Travel in Aid of Racketeering Form

57 Interstate Travel In Aid Of Racketeering 18 USC § 19 52(a)(3) Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951(a)(3), makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to travel in [interstate] [foreign] commerce for the purpose of carrying on certain unlawful activities. The Defendant can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: First: That the Defendant traveled in [interstate] [foreign] commerce on or about the time, and between the places, charged in the indictment; Second: That the Defendant engaged in that travel with the specific intent to promote, manage, establish or carry on an "unlawful activity," as hereafter defined; and Third: That the Defendant thereafter knowingly and willfully committed an act to promote, manage, establish or carry on such "unlawful activity." [The term " interstate commerce" means transportation or movement between one state and another state;] [The term " foreign commerce" means transportation or movement between some place within the United States and some place outside the United States;] and while it must be proved that the Defendant traveled in [interstate commerce] [foreign commerce] with the specific intent to promote, manage, establish or carry on an " unlawful activity," it need not be proved that such purpose was the only reason or motive prompting the Defendant's travel. The term " unlawful activity" includes any " business enterprise" involving [gambling offenses in violation of the laws of the State in which they are committed]. [You are instructed that under Florida law engaging "in any game at cards or other game of chance for money or other thing of value" is unlawful.] To constitute a "business enterprise" it is not necessary that the alleged illegal activity be engaged in for any particular length of time, nor must it be proved that such activity constituted the primary pursuit or occupation of the Defendant, or that it actually returned any profit. What must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt is that the Defendant did engage in a continuous course of conduct or series of transactions for the purpose of profit, rather than casual, sporadic or isolated activity. The indictment charges that the Defendant traveled in [interstate commerce] [foreign commerce] with the intent to promote, manage, establish and carry on an unlawful activity. However, the law is worded in the disjunctive, that is, the various modes or methods of violating the statute are separated by the word "or." So, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that any one method or way of violating the law occurred, that is sufficient so long as you agree unanimously upon the particular way or method involved. ANNOTATIONS AND COMMENTS 18 USC § 19 52 (a)(3) provides: (a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, with intent to (3) promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity, and thereafter performs or attempts to perform any of the acts specified in subparagraph (3) [shall be guilty of an offense against the United States]. (b) As used in t his sect ion "unlawful activity" means (1) any business enterprise involving gambling, liquor on which the Federal excise tax has not been paid, narcotics or controlled substances (as defined in section 1 02 (6) of the Controlled Substances Act), or prostitution offenses in violation of the laws of the State in which they are committed or of the United States, (2) extortion, bribery, or arson in violation of the laws of the State in which they are committed or of the United States, or (3) any act which is indictable under subchapter II of chapter 5 3 of t it le 3 1, United States Code, or under section 1956 or 1957 of this title Maximum Penalty: Five (5) years imprisonment and applicable fine. A conviction under this statute does not require the Government to prove that the Defendant knew or intended that interstate facilities be used in the commission of the offense. See, United States v. Broadwell, 8 70 F.2d 5 94 (11 t h Cir. 1 98 9).