United States v. Ivezaj
2009 WL 1619389, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12526, 568 F.3d 88 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New York's extortion statute, the term 'property' encompasses intangible and illegal assets, such as control over an illicit gambling operation. Forcibly wresting control of such an intangible business satisfies the statutory requirement that property be 'delivered'.
Facts:
- The Rudaj Organization, a violent Albanian racketeering group, sought to take control of illegal gambling operations in the New York City area.
- In June 2001, members of the Rudaj Organization assaulted Antonios Balampanis, an associate of Fotios Dimopoulos, who supervised a rival crime family's gambling operations in Astoria, Queens.
- The assault on Balampanis was intended as a 'message' for Dimopoulos, who subsequently ceased his involvement in the Astoria gambling clubs.
- In August 2001, a competing gambling club known as 'Soccer Fever' was opened by a rival associate and operated by Mikhail Hirakis.
- On the club's second night of operation, approximately fifteen members of the Rudaj Organization, including the defendants, stormed 'Soccer Fever' armed with guns.
- The Rudaj Organization members assaulted Hirakis and intimidated patrons, declaring the club 'closed' and threatening further violence.
- 'Soccer Fever' ceased to operate after this event, allowing the Rudaj Organization to extend its control over illegal gambling in the area.
Procedural Posture:
- Prenka Ivezaj and his co-defendants were charged in a multi-count indictment in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The charges included substantive racketeering (RICO), racketeering conspiracy, and using firearms in furtherance of a crime of violence.
- Following a jury trial, the district court dismissed several counts.
- The jury returned guilty verdicts on all but one of the remaining counts against the defendants.
- The defendants were sentenced to substantial prison terms by the district court.
- The defendants, as appellants, appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does control over an illegal gambling operation constitute 'property' that can be 'delivered' for the purposes of New York's extortion statute?
Opinions:
Majority - B.D. Parker, Jr.
Yes, control over an illegal gambling operation constitutes 'property' that can be 'delivered' under New York's extortion statute. The statute defines 'property' broadly as any 'thing of value,' which includes control over an illegal gambling business. New York courts have previously held that both intangible rights (like a tenancy) and illegal tangible goods (like narcotics) qualify as 'property' under the statute, indicating there is no legality requirement. This interpretation is consistent with federal Hobbs Act jurisprudence, which was modeled on the New York law and similarly holds that illegal, intangible rights can be extorted. The requirement of 'delivery' is not interpreted literally for intangible property; wresting control from the victims is sufficient to constitute obtaining the property.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that the scope of extortion statutes is broad enough to cover conflicts between criminal enterprises over illegal assets. It prevents defendants from using the illegality of a victim's business as a shield against prosecution for a violent takeover. The court's reasoning reinforces the principle that 'property' for the purposes of extortion and larceny statutes focuses on the value and possessory interest of an asset, not its legal status. This precedent is significant for prosecutors targeting organized crime, as it allows them to frame turf wars over illicit markets as predicate acts of extortion for RICO charges.
