United States v. Mongol Nation
693 F. App'x 637
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- The government indicted Mongol Nation (an unincorporated association of full‑patch Mongols members) under RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (d), alleging the Mongols Gang as the RICO "enterprise."
- The district court dismissed the indictment, finding no meaningful distinction between the RICO "person" (Mongol Nation) and the RICO "enterprise" (Mongols Gang).
- The district court declined to decide related arguments about whether an unincorporated association can be liable for predicate acts or whether trademark forfeiture would be possible on conviction.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo, accepting indictment allegations as true for purposes of the motion to dismiss.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding the district court erred on the distinctness issue and leaving forfeiture and predicate‑act issues for the district court to address on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Distinctness of "person" and "enterprise" under RICO | Gov: Mongol Nation is a RICO person distinct from the larger Mongols Gang enterprise because Mongol Nation is a subset of the enterprise | Mongol Nation: No meaningful distinction; the association and gang are the same entity | Reversed: Mongol Nation (subset of the enterprise) can be a distinct RICO person from the larger Mongols Gang enterprise |
| Forfeiture futility (trademarks) | Gov: Forfeiture may be available post‑conviction; premature to decide now | Mongol Nation: Remand is futile because trademarks registered to Mongol Nation cannot be forfeited | Held: Unpersuasive; premature to resolve forfeiture now; remand appropriate |
| Ripeness of constitutional challenge | Gov: Constitutional challenge should be decided only if conviction occurs or facts mature | Mongol Nation: Raised immediate constitutional challenges | Held: Constitutional challenge not ripe for review at this stage |
| Capacity of unincorporated association to commit predicate acts | Gov: Some predicate acts can be committed by associations; issue should be resolved on remand | Mongol Nation: Argues an unincorporated association cannot be the basis for predicate acts | Held: District court should address on remand; not resolved here |
Key Cases Cited
- Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, 533 U.S. 158 (Supreme Court) (RICO requires distinct "person" and "enterprise")
- Sever v. Alaska Pulp Corp., 978 F.2d 1529 (9th Cir.) (distinguishing "person" from "enterprise")
- Riverwoods Chappaqua Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 30 F.3d 339 (2d Cir.) (discussing when person and enterprise may collapse)
- Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 431 F.3d 353 (9th Cir.) (corporate officers can be distinct from corporate enterprise)
- United States v. A & P Trucking Co., 358 U.S. 121 (Supreme Court) (entities similar to unincorporated associations can commit criminal acts)
- Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29 (Supreme Court) (forfeiture issues tied to sentencing and conviction)