Defendants Stolfi and Casalino, officers of Teamsters Local 875, were convicted of violating the RICO Act and the Hobbs Act. They appealed the convictions, contending that the RICO charges were improper and the Hobbs Act charge insufficient.] WINTER, C. J.... This case involves the criminal activities of officers of the Teamsters Union in their dealings with the Wedtech Corporation.
After Wedtech's management learned of discussions of unionization among Wedtech employees, the company became fearful that the employees would select a union that would engage in arm's-length bargaining. A principal shareholder and officer of Wedtech had previously dealt with Local 875 in his capacity as the owner of a machine shop in the Bronx and was confident that he could develop a collusive relationship with it.
Soon thereafter, in April 1977, Wedtech recognized Local 875 and signed a collective agreement that, inter alia, required Wedtech to make contributions to the union's welfare benefit fund, the Louis Hirsch Memorial Welfare Fund ("Fund"). As officers of Local 875, Stolfi and Casalino were responsible for negotiating with Wedtech on behalf of the Wedtech employees and the Fund. Local 875 and the Fund also shared offices, and the evidence showed that appellants had influence over the operation of the Fund. Wedtech realized the value of a good relationship with Stolfi and Casalino and for a period of years made monthly cash payments of $5,000 to them. In return, Wedtech enjoyed relative freedom from labor disputes and was even able to use nonunion labor on some projects, causing a reduction in contributions to the Fund.
In 1983, Wedtech also paid the appellants $25,000 for negotiating what Wedtech officers considered a "viable" collective bargaining agreement after the unionized Wedtech employees exhibited dissatisfaction with their less-than-aggressive bargaining representative. Finally, Wedtech was threatened by Local 17 of the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners ("carpenters' local") with work stoppages and violence as a result of the use of non-union labor. Stolfi and Casalino made their good offices available to aid Wedtech in its difficulties with the carpenters, and Wedtech gave appellants $100,000 to pay off the carpenters' local, which thereafter ceased its threatening behavior.
In addition, Stolfi embezzled money from the Fund through a false insurance claim and kickbacks from the purchase of real and fictitious dental equipment by a Fund dentist. In 1988, Stolfi and Casalino were charged in an 11-count indictment. The charges pertinent to this appeal were a RICO violation and RICO conspiracy in conjunction with the Wedtech payoffs. The RICO charges against Stolfi also included embezzlement and receipt of kickbacks from the Fund as predicate crimes. Also pertinent to the appeal was a Hobbs Act count involving the extorted $100,000 payoff that resolved the dispute with the carpenters' local. RICO Section 1962(c) makes it unlawful for "any person employed by or associated with any enterprise" to conduct or participate in the conduct of the enterprise's affairs through "a pattern of racketeering activity."
The indictment in this case alleged that the RICO "enterprise" was composed of Local 875 and the Fund, and the jury specifically found that the RICO enterprise had been established as alleged. Appellants' challenge to their RICO convictions is that they were entitled to an instruction advising the jury that it should consider their contention that Local 875 and the Fund constituted two separate enterprises rather than the single enterprise charged in the indictment. Judge Mukasey declined to offer that instruction.... A RICO enterprise is ... distinguishable from a criminal conspiracy in that it has cumulative aspects, whereas separate and distinct conspiratorial agreements must be charged and proven individually.
Local 875 and the Fund may often have functioned as separate and distinct organizations and may have been capable of being separate enterprises for RICO purposes. That does not, however, preclude a finding that Local 875 and the Fund were jointly a RICO enterprise where appellants connected them by participating in them through a pattern of racketeering activity.... [The Court therefore held that Local 875 and the Fund were jointly a RICO "enterprise" and that defendants' participation became a crime when it involved a pattern of racketeering activities.] Appellants also argue that the government failed to prove that their receipt of payments from Wedtech to prevent disruption by the carpenters' local constituted aiding and abetting of a Hobbs Act violation.
The argument is baseless. Extortion through threats of economic loss from violence or work stop-pages falls within the Hobbs Act's prohibitions, see United States v. Robilotto, 828 F.2d 940, 944-945 (2d Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1011, 108 S.Ct. 711, 98 L.Ed.2d 662 (1988), and such extortion was shown in the instant case. Wedtech reasonably believed "first, that the [carpenters' local] had the power to harm [Wedtech], and second, that the [local] would exploit that power to [Wedtech's] detriment." United States v. Capo, 817 F.2d 947, 951 (2d Cir. 1987) (in banc); see also United States v. Covino, 837 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir. 1988). The instant case is, therefore, not like Capo, where the victims made payments, not to avoid a threatened loss, but only to improve their chances of obtaining a benefit. Cf. 817 F.2d at 950-954.
It is of course true that Wedtech feared the pertinent harm not from appellants but from the carpenters' local. However, to prove aiding and abetting, the government need show only that appellants "associated themselves" with the carpenters' criminal venture, participated in it as something that they wished to bring about, or sought by their action to make it succeed. See United States v. Clemente, 640 F.2d 1069, 1078-79 (2d. Cir.).
The evidence was more than sufficient to make that showing. Appellants conducted the negotiations leading to the payoff and transmitted it for the express purpose of avoiding the threatened harm to Wedtech. This knowing participation as intermediaries is more purposeful than the participation of the "steerer" in Clemente, who merely advised the victim concerning a payoff. See 640 F.2d at 1073. Because Stolfi and Casalino unmistakably sought to make the extortionate scheme succeed, the fact that they did not share in the $100,000 is irrelevant. See Clemente, 640 F.2d at 1079-80. Affirmed.
Case Questions
1. Comment on Wedtech's concern that the employees would select a union that would engage in arm's-length bargaining.
2. Under what circumstances may two separate enterprises become a singular RICO enterprise?
3. Assess the fairness of the Hobbs Act conviction when the defendants did not seek or receive a single dollar for their activities in resolving the carpenters' dispute.