18 U.S.C. § 1959

Violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Whoever, as consideration for the receipt of, or as consideration for a promise or agreement to pay, anything of pecuniary value from an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity, or for the purpose of gaining entrance to or maintaining or increasing position in an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity, murders, kidnaps, maims, assaults with a dangerous weapon, commits assault resulting in serious bodily injury upon, or threatens to commit a crime of violence against any individual in violation of the laws of any State or the United States, or attempts or conspires so to do, shall be punished—(1) for murder, by death or life imprisonment, or a fine under this title, or both; and for kidnapping, by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or a fine under this title, or both;(2) for maiming, by imprisonment for not more than thirty years or a fine under this title, or both;(3) for assault with a dangerous weapon or assault resulting in serious bodily injury, by imprisonment for not more than twenty years or a fine under this title, or both;(4) for threatening to commit a crime of violence, by imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine under this title, or both;(5) for attempting or conspiring to commit murder or kidnapping, by imprisonment for not more than ten years or a fine under this title, or both; and(6) for attempting or conspiring to commit a crime involving maiming, assault with a dangerous weapon, or assault resulting in serious bodily injury, by imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine of 11 So in original. The word “of” probably should not appear. under this title, or both.(b) As used in this section—(1) “racketeering activity” has the meaning set forth in section 1961 of this title; and(2) “enterprise” includes any partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity, which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.(Added Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 1002(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2137, § 1952B; renumbered § 1959, Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7053(b), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4402; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60003(a)(12), title XXXIII, §§ 330016(1)(J), (2)(C), 330021(1), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1969, 2147, 2148, 2150.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1994—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 103–322, § 330016(2)(C), substituted “fine under this title” for “fine of not more than $250,000” in two places.

Pub. L. 103–322, § 60003(a)(12), amended par. (1) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (1) read as follows:

“(1) for murder or kidnaping, by imprisonment for any term of years or for life or a fine of not more than $50,000, or both;”.

Subsec. (a)(2) to (4). Pub. L. 103–322, § 330016(2)(C), substituted “fine under this title” for “fine of not more than $30,000” in par. (2), “fine of not more than $20,000” in par. (3), and “fine of not more than $5,000” in par. (4).

Subsec. (a)(5). Pub. L. 103–322, § 330021(1), substituted “kidnapping” for “kidnaping”.

Pub. L. 103–322, § 330016(2)(C), substituted “fine under this title” for “fine of not more than $10,000”.

Subsec. (a)(6). Pub. L. 103–322, § 330016(1)(J), substituted “under this title” for “not more than $3,000” after “fine of”.

1988—Pub. L. 100–690 renumbered section 1952B of this title as this section.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1,175 cases (374 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: United States v. Gurmeet Singh Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635 (2d Cir. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Gurmeet Singh Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635 (2d Cir. 2001). · cites it 14× “§ 1962 (c), (d) (counts 1 and 2); 2 three counts of conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959 (a)(5) (counts 3, 7 and 14); two counts of murder in aid of racketeering, in violation of 18 U.”

United States v. Robert Ledbetter, 929 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 2019). · cites it 12× “After two months of trial, each of the five defendants was convicted and sentenced to at least one mandatory life sentence for murder in aid of racketeering under 18 U.S.C. § 1959 , and all but Robinson were convicted of RICO conspiracy, 18 U.”

United States v. Alex Wong, Roger Kwok, Chen I. Chung, Tung Tran, Danny Ngo, Brian Chan, Joseph Wang, Chiang T. Cheng, & Steven Ng, 40 F.3d 1347 (2d Cir. 1994). · cites it 19× “Cheng, and Steven Ng was also convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit an assault with dangerous weapons to maintain or increase their positions in a RICO enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959 (a)(6). In addition, Alex Wong was convicted of one count of conspiracy to…”

United States v. Daniel Mathis, 932 F.3d 242 (4th Cir. 2019). · cites it 6× “Mathis, Shantai, Mersadies, and Kweli (collectively, the capital defendants) also were convicted, in relation to the murder of an off-duty police officer, of violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959 (VICAR) by committing kidnapping and…”

United States v. Alejandro Umana, 750 F.3d 320 (4th Cir. 2014). · cites it 16× “The jury also found Umaña guilty of murdering the Salinas brothers in aid of racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959 (a)(1). Finally, the jury found Umaña guilty of using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, resulting in the death of the Salinas brothers, in…”

United States v. Aquart, 912 F.3d 1 (2d Cir. 2018). · cites it 10× “1 After a five week trial in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Janet Bond Arterton, Judge ), the jury found Aquart guilty of conspiracy to commit violent crimes in aid of racketeering ("VICAR"), specifically, murder, see 18 U.S.C. § 1959 (a)(5) ;…”

Nelson Quinteros v. Attorney Gen. United States, 945 F.3d 772 (3rd Cir. 2019). · cites it 7× “In 2011, Quinteros was indicted for conspiracy to commit assault with a dangerous weapon under 18 U.S.C. § 1959 (a)(6). Quinteros and other gang members discussed over the phone that they would assault members of Surenos, a rival gang.”

United States v. Keith Bernard Crenshaw, United States of Am. v. Kamil Hakeem Johnson, United States of Am. v. Timothy Kevin McGruder, 359 F.3d 977 (8th Cir. 2004). · cites it 9× “They also contend that the statute under which they were convicted, 18 U.S.C. § 1959 (2000), is unconstitutional because it overreaches Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause.”

United States v. Austin Woods, 14 F.4th 544 (6th Cir. 2021). · cites it 9× “Relevant to this appeal, both Antoine and Austin were charged with conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959 (a)(5) (Count 1); using, carrying, and discharging a firearm on or about December 6, 2015, during and in relation to a crime of…”

United States v. Taison McCollum, 885 F.3d 300 (4th Cir. 2018). · cites it 7× “1(a)(4)(A) of the Sentencing Guidelines based on McCollum’s prior conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1959 (a)(5) for conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering.”

United States v. Ruben Feliciano, AKA Rude Dog, AKA Roob Dog, Ronald Pagan, AKA Twin, & Nelson Gonzalez, AKA Snoop,defendants-Appellants, 223 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2000). · cites it 11× “At trial in January and February of 1999, Feliciano, Pagan, and Gonzalez, members of a gang known as Los Solidos, were found guilty by a jury of conspiring to murder and murdering 16-year old fellow member Edwin Ramos, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959 . Feliciano and Pagan were…”

United States v. Ayala, 601 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2010). · cites it 9× “§§ 1961-68 , and the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering (“VICAR”) statute, *261 18 U.S.C. § 1959 . On appeal, the defendants raise numerous claims, some individually and others collectively.”

Show all 1,175 citing cases →

— 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a) — 4 cases

State v. Link, 441 P.3d 664 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).

United States v. Roger David Rolett, 151 F.3d 787 (8th Cir. 1998).

United States v. James, 415 F. Supp. 2d 132 (E.D.N.Y 2006).

United States v. Rivera, 273 F. App'x 55 (2d Cir. 2008).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1) — 3 cases

United States v. Payne, 591 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2010).

Simmons v. United States (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Herring (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(3) — 3 cases

United States v. Austin Woods, 14 F.4th 544 (6th Cir. 2021). “Relevant to this appeal, both Antoine and Austin were charged with conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959 (a)(5) (Count 1); using, carrying, and discharging a firearm on or about December 6, 2015, during and in relation to a crime of…”

United States v. William Frazier (6th Cir. 2020).

United States v. Gennell (N.D. Ill. 2024).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5) — 3 cases

United States v. Gennell (N.D. Ill. 2024).

Massa v. United States (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Abrue v. United States (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

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.