2017 V.I. LEXIS 40
Superior Court of The Virgin I...2017Background
- Defendants (McKenzie, Charleswell, Warner, Sabers) were charged by amended Information under the Virgin Islands CICO statutes (14 V.I.C. §§ 604, 605) for an alleged scheme to manipulate a government tax-auction for property at 97 Estate Frydenhoj, St. Thomas.
- The amended Information alleges an association-in-fact enterprise centered on Charleswell (an OLG official) and that defendants engaged in multiple acts (forgery, false pretenses, conversion, false recordings, fraudulent claims, larceny, embezzlement) to effect a below-market transfer of the Property to Sabers.
- Defendants moved to dismiss Counts 4 and 25 (CICO conspiracy and substantive CICO allegations) arguing the Information fails to plead two essential CICO elements: an "enterprise" and a "pattern of criminal activity."
- The People amended the Information to add more detailed allegations of the enterprise and pattern; the People sought and received a short nunc pro tunc extension to file a brief.
- The court treated the factual allegations in the Information as true for the motion-to-dismiss stage and evaluated whether the allegations satisfy the statutory elements of CICO, applying statutory interpretation principles to 14 V.I.C. § 604(j).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Amended Information sufficiently alleges an "association-in-fact" enterprise under CICO | Amended Information alleges a purpose (fraudulent auction), relationships (Charleswell and others), and repeated conduct tied to the scheme | The alleged enterprise had only a single short-lived objective (transfer of one property) and lacked an ongoing structure | Court: Allegations give sufficient factual orientation to plead an association-in-fact enterprise at this stage; motion denied |
| Whether the Amended Information sufficiently alleges a "pattern of criminal activity" under 14 V.I.C. § 604(j) | The statutory definition in §604(j) supplies the elements; the Information pleads multiple predicate offenses related to the enterprise and within the statutory time frame | CICO pattern should be read like RICO: requires relationship plus continuity (threat of continued criminal activity) beyond simply non-isolated acts | Court: §604(j) is a complete statutory definition and does not require RICO-style continuity; the Information pleads two or more related, non-isolated occasions and other statutory prerequisites; motion denied |
| Whether federal RICO jurisprudence (continuity requirement) controls interpretation of §604(j) | People: CICO's express definition governs; no need to import RICO continuity rule | Defendants: CICO modeled on RICO; H.J. Inc. continuity-plus-relationship should apply | Court: Because §604(j) expressly defines "pattern," the court declines to import RICO continuity; uses textual interpretation and analogous state "little RICO" approaches |
| Whether the court may consider sufficiency of government evidence on pretrial motion to dismiss | People: not for dismissal stage; facts in Information suffice; evidence tested at trial | Defendants: factual insufficiency of allegations warrants dismissal | Court: Pretrial dismissal tests only adequacy of charging document; challenges to evidence are premature and belong at trial or Rule 29 motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009) (association-in-fact enterprise requires purpose, relationships, and longevity)
- United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981) (enterprise is distinct element from pattern but may be inferred from activity)
- H. J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989) (RICO "pattern" requires relatedness and continuity)
- Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (1985) (interpretive background on RICO and pattern concept)