929 F.3d 1120
9th Cir.2019Background
- Phillips owned NKP Medical and hired Fruchter as a contractor; their relationship soured after partnership/software disputes and competing businesses emerged.
- Phillips loaned $30,000 to Suiaunoa for an illegal marijuana venture; Suiaunoa spent the money and could not repay.
- Suiaunoa (a cooperating, convicted felon) testified that Phillips offered to forgive the $30,000 loan if Suiaunoa arranged for Fruchter to be killed; Phillips provided Fruchter’s photo and addresses.
- Law enforcement used an informant and undercover officers to record discussions; they identified Fruchter as the target, staged his death, and recorded Suiaunoa meeting Phillips with a staged photo of Fruchter’s body.
- Phillips was arrested, tried, and convicted by a jury for conspiracy to use interstate communications in a murder-for-hire in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958; he was sentenced to 90 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether promise to forgive an illegal, unenforceable debt satisfies § 1958's "pecuniary value" requirement | Government: quid pro quo need only be an economic advantage, not contract-enforceability | Phillips: debt was unenforceable (illegal venture) and Suiaunoa already spent funds, so no economic benefit | Court: promise of loan forgiveness is an economic benefit and satisfies § 1958; enforceability not required |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ritter, 989 F.2d 318 (9th Cir. 1993) (requires intent to pay as critical element of murder-for-hire)
- United States v. Chong, 419 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2005) (pecuniary benefit requires that hitmen understood they'd receive economic value)
- United States v. Gibson, 530 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2008) (drugs, guns, or proceeds from crimes can constitute consideration under § 1958)
- United States v. Washington, 318 F.3d 845 (8th Cir. 2003) (drug payment satisfies § 1958(b) pecuniary-value definition)
- United States v. Hernandez, 141 F.3d 1042 (11th Cir. 1998) (contract-law enforceability inapplicable to § 1958 quid pro quo)
- United States v. McCullough, 631 F.3d 783 (5th Cir. 2011) (uncollectable financing statement can still evidence a promise to pay hitmen)
- United States v. Caguana, 884 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2018) ("consideration" in § 1958 means "in return for," not full contract-law consideration)
- United States v. Wicklund, 114 F.3d 151 (10th Cir. 1997) (motive like revenge or life-insurance expectation does not satisfy § 1958 pecuniary requirement)