State v. Park.
149 Haw. 542
| Haw. App. | 2021Background
- Defendant Yoonjung Park (aka "Suji") was indicted under Hawaii's Organized Crime law, HRS § 842-2(3), alleging she conducted or participated in the affairs of Belabration and Roses Spa LLC through prostitution.
- Grand jury evidence: one customer (Jason) testified to three paid sexual encounters with "Suji" and identified Park from a photographic lineup; a coworker (Okku) described Roses’ on-site operations and mama-sans who collected house fees and handled bookings; an investigator confirmed Roses operated as a Hawaii LLC (Belabration and Roses Spa LLC) and found indicia of prostitution during a search.
- The circuit court granted Park’s motion to dismiss Count 1, concluding the State failed to produce evidence of an "enterprise," relying on State v. Ontai.
- The State appealed, arguing (inter alia) that the LLC constituted an enterprise and that the grand jury evidence supported Park’s participation in conducting the enterprise’s affairs.
- The Intermediate Court of Appeals (Hiraoka, J.) held that (1) a Hawaii limited liability company qualifies as an "enterprise" under HRS § 842-1, distinguishing Ontai, but (2) the State failed to show Park had any part in directing the enterprise’s affairs as required under the Reves standard, so dismissal as to Park was affirmed for a different reason.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Hawai‘i LLC qualifies as an "enterprise" under HRS § 842-1 | LLC status is sufficient; Roses (Belabration & Roses Spa LLC) is an enterprise | No ascertainable enterprise proved beyond registry; Ontai controls | Held: An LLC is a legal-entity "enterprise" under HRS § 842-1; Ontai (associated-in-fact context) is distinguishable |
| Whether evidence showed Park "conduct[ed] or participate[d] in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise" through racketeering activity | Park’s prostitution acts and advertising ties to Roses suffice to show participation in the enterprise | Park only engaged in isolated prostitution acts; did not direct, manage, or otherwise take part in directing affairs | Held: Applying Reves, "conduct/participate" requires some part in directing affairs; no evidence Park directed or had part in directing Roses’ affairs — dismissal affirmed as to Park |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ontai, [citation="84 Hawai'i 56"] (Haw. 1996) (interpreting RICO enterprise requirements in an associated-in-fact context)
- United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (U.S. 1981) (RICO "enterprise" includes legal entities and associated-in-fact groups)
- Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170 (U.S. 1993) ("conduct . . . in the conduct of [an] enterprise's affairs" requires some part in directing those affairs)
- State v. Bates, [citation="84 Hawai'i 211"] (Haw. 1997) (discussing scope of "associated with" and RICO elements under Hawaii law)
- United States v. Kragness, 830 F.2d 842 (8th Cir. 1987) (Eighth Circuit formulation of enterprise characteristics referenced in Ontai)