U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART I— CRIMES › Chapter CHAPTER 95— RACKETEERING

18 U.S.C. § 1952

Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, with intent to—(1) distribute the proceeds of any unlawful activity; or(2) commit any crime of violence to further any unlawful activity; or(3) otherwise 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—(A) an act described in paragraph (1) or (3) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both; or(B) an act described in paragraph (2) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.(b) As used in this section (i) “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 102(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 committed or of the United States, or (3) any act which is indictable under subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, or under section 1956 or 1957 of this title and (ii) the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.(c) Investigations of violations under this section involving liquor shall be conducted under the supervision of the Attorney General.(d) If the offense under this section involves an act described in paragraph (1) or (3) of subsection (a) and also involves a pre-retail medical product (as defined in section 670), the punishment for the offense shall be the same as the punishment for an offense under section 670 unless the punishment under subsection (a) is greater.(e)(1) This section shall not apply to a savings promotion raffle conducted by an insured depository institution or an insured credit union.(2) In this subsection—(A) the term “insured credit union” shall have the meaning given the term in section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1752);(B) the term “insured depository institution” shall have the meaning given the term in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813); and(C) the term “savings promotion raffle” means a contest in which the sole consideration required for a chance of winning designated prizes is obtained by the deposit of a specified amount of money in a savings account or other savings program, where each ticket or entry has an equal chance of being drawn, such contest being subject to regulations that may from time to time be promulgated by the appropriate prudential regulator (as defined in section 1002 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5481)).(Added Pub. L. 87–228, § 1(a), Sept. 13, 1961, 75 Stat. 498; amended Pub. L. 89–68, July 7, 1965, 79 Stat. 212; Pub. L. 91–513, title II, § 701(i)(2), Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1282; Pub. L. 99–570, title I, § 1365(a), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–35; Pub. L. 101–647, title XII, § 1205(i), title XVI, § 1604, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4831, 4843; Pub. L. 103–322, title XIV, § 140007(a), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2033, 2147; Pub. L. 107–296, title XI, § 1112(h), Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2277; Pub. L. 112–186, § 4(b)(1), Oct. 5, 2012, 126 Stat. 1429; Pub. L. 113–251, § 5(1), Dec. 18, 2014, 128 Stat. 2890.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act, referred to in subsec. (b)(i)(1), is classified to section 802(6) of Title 21, Food and Drugs.

Amendments

2014—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 113–251 added subsec. (e).

2012—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 112–186 added subsec. (d).

2002—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 107–296 substituted “Attorney General” for “Secretary of the Treasury”.

1994—Pub. L. 103–322, § 330016(1)(L), which directed the amendment of this section by substituting “under this title” for “not more than $10,000”, could not be executed because the phrase “not more than $10,000” did not appear in text subsequent to amendment of subsec. (a) by Pub. L. 103–322, § 140007(a). See below.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–322, § 140007(a), substituted “and thereafter performs or attempts to perform—” and subpars. (A) and (B) for former concluding provisions which read as follows: “and thereafter performs or attempts to perform any of the acts specified in subparagraphs (1), (2), and (3), shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.”

1990—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 101–647, § 1604, inserted “the mail or” after “uses” and struck out “including the mail,” before “with intent” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 101–647, § 1205(i), inserted “(i)” after “As used in this section” and added cl. (ii).

1986—Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 99–570 added cl. (3).

1970—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 91–513, § 701(i)(2)(A), inserted “or controlled substances (as defined in section 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act)”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 91–513, § 701(i)(2)(B), struck out reference to investigations involving narcotics.

1965—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 89–68 made section applicable to travel in aid of arson.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2002 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 107–296 effective 60 days after Nov. 25, 2002, see section 4 of Pub. L. 107–296, set out as an Effective Date note under section 101 of Title 6, Domestic Security.

Effective Date of 1970 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 91–513 effective on first day of seventh calendar month that begins after Oct. 26, 1970, see section 704 of Pub. L. 91–513, set out as an Effective Date note under section 801 of Title 21, Food and Drugs.

Short Title

This section is popularly known as the “Travel Act”.

Savings Provision

Amendment by Pub. L. 91–513 not to affect or abate any prosecutions for any violation of law or any civil seizures or forfeitures and injunctive proceedings commenced prior to the effective date of such amendment, and all administrative proceedings pending before the former Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs on Oct. 27, 1970, were to be continued and brought to final determination in accord with laws and regulations in effect prior to Oct. 27, 1970, see section 702 of Pub. L. 91–513, set out as a Savings Provision note under section 321 of Title 21, Food and Drugs.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2,450 cases (156 in the last 5 years), 1962–2026 · leading case: United States v. Welch
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Welch (2003) ca10 · cites it 7× “Counts II through V charged Defendants with use of communications in interstate and foreign commerce to facilitate unlawful activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952 (a)(3). Counts VI through X charged Defendants with mail fraud in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Nader (2008) ca9 · cites it 7× “CLIFTON, Circuit Judge: Tina Nader and Marilyn Lake, operators of a prostitution business, appeal their convictions for violating the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952 . Among other things, the Travel Act prohibits the use of “any facility in interstate or foreign commerce” with…”
United States v. Zirpolo (1968) njd · cites it 23× “Bankes (who are not named as defendants in the Indictment) knowingly, wilfully and unlawfully combined and conspired with each other, and with a representative of Rowland Tompkins Corporation, to commit certain offenses against the United States of America in violation of 18…”
United States v. Russell Charles Dailey, A/K/A Don Agrillo (1994) ca11 · cites it 11× “COX, Circuit Judge: Russell Charles Dailey was convicted on one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1952 (a)(3) (1988 & Supp. II 1990), interstate travel with intent to carry on the unlawful activity of extortion, in the Northern District of Alabama in September 1992.”
United States v. John Fox (1990) ca10 · cites it 7× “§ 846 (Count I), and of interstate travel for the purpose of promoting unlawful activity, in violation of the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952 (Count VI). On appeal, Fox asserts that: (1) the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence seized at his arrest; (2)…”
United States v. Larry E. Stott, Jr., Robert A. Gaughan, Also Known as Bob, and Lonnie M. Ford, Also Known as Lonnie (2001) ca7 · cites it 5× “Stott was charged with violating the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952 , 6 both as a principal and as an aider and abettor.”
United States v. Richard Scott McLernon Kido Yaqui, Sherri Louise Farrell, Miguel Angel Carranza, and Marco Antonio Vald (1984) ca6 · cites it 6× “§ 843 (b), 2 two counts of interstate travel to promote unlawful activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1952 3 and one count of possession with *1105 intent to distribute cocaine under 21 U.”
United States v. Tarantino (1988) cadc · cites it 5× “§ 2 (1982), of four counts of violations of the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952 (1982). Fred B. Black, Jr.”
Zaldy Myers v. Jefferson Sessions, III (2018) ca9 · cites it 14× “SESSIONS SUMMARY** Immigration The panel denied in part and granted in part Zaldy Arquitola Myers’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals that found him removable for a controlled substance offense and ineligible for cancellation of removal,…”
Haynes v. United States (2017) ilcd · cites it 10× “Petitioner’s first supplemental claim that he is actually innocent of the convictions for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1952 cannot be heard by this Court.”
United States v. Russell A. Werme (1991) ca3 · cites it 7× “§ 371 ; and (2) one count of violating the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952 (a)(3). A jury found Werme guilty of both counts, and Brault guilty of the Travel Act violation but acquitted him of conspiracy.”
United States v. Stephen Hathaway, United States of America v. Howard Baptista (1976) ca1 · cites it 6× “§ 1951 , the Hobbs Act, and 18 U.S.C. § 1952 , the Travel Act. Both were convicted of all charges after an eight-day jury trial.”
Show all 2,450 citing cases →
— 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a) — 2 cases
United States v. John McGhee (1988) ca6
United States v. Leonardo Rosquete (2006) ca11
— 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(1) — 1 case
United States v. Donald Edward Miles (2002) ca11
— 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(2) — 1 case
United States v. Cruz (1997) ca4
— 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3) — 5 cases
United States v. Kelly Rollins and Dan Slaughter (1989) ca7
United States v. Russell A. Werme (1991) ca3 “§ 371 ; and (2) one count of violating the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952 (a)(3). A jury found Werme guilty of both counts, and Brault guilty of the Travel Act violation but acquitted him of conspiracy.”
United States v. Gregorio Manriquez Arbizo (1987) ca10
United States v. Walter Lewis Clark, Iii, and George R. Newton, Moody Nichols, Defendants (1984) ca11
Marriott Bros. v. Gage (1988) txnd
— 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3)(A) — 1 case
United States v. William Marshall (2012) ca8
— 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3)(B) — 1 case
United States v. Edwards (2002) ca4
— 18 U.S.C. § 1952(b)(1) — 1 case
United States v. Mark Morelock (2010) ca6
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.