Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1951
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/t...
US Attorneys > USAM > Title 9 > USAM Chapter 9-131.000 prev | next | Criminal Resource Manual
9-131.010 Introduction
This chapter focuses on the Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. 1951) which prohibits actual or attempted robbery or extortion affecting interstate or foreign commerce. Section 1951 also proscribes conspiracy to commit robbery or extortion without reference to the conspiracy statute at 18 U.S.C. 371. Although the Hobbs Act was enacted as a statute to combat racketeering in labor-management disputes, the statute is frequently used in connection with cases involving public corruption, commercial disputes, and corruption directed at members of labor unions. The Criminal Resource Manual contains a discussion of Hobbs Act case law and form indictments: Generally Extortion By Force, Violence, or Fear Under Color of Official Right Form IndictmentInterference with Commerce by Extortion Form IndictmentInterference with Commerce by Robbery (18 U.S.C. 1951) Criminal Resource Manual at 2402 Criminal Resource Manual at 2403 Criminal Resource Manual at 2404 Criminal Resource Manual at 2405 Criminal Resource Manual at 2406
1 of 2
4/16/12 5:19 PM
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/t...
9-131.040 Policy
The robbery offense in 18 U.S.C. 1951 is to be utilized, as a general rule, only in instances involving organized crime, gang activity, or wide-ranging schemes. The courts of appeals have agreed that proof of a de minimis effect on commerce is sufficient in a Hobbs Act prosecution. See United States v. Baylor, 517 F.3d 899, 901-903 (6th Cir.) (citing cases), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2982 (2008). And recent Supreme Court decisions strongly support the constitutional adequacy of that showing. Nevertheless, it is important to ensure that proof of an effect on commerce in the individual case is introduced, in accordance with appropriate Hobbs Act standards. See, e.g., United States v. Parkes, 497 F.3d 220, 225-231 (2d Cir. 2007) (proof beyond a reasonable doubt that commerce was affected is a crucial part of Hobbs Act prosecution), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1320 (2008); United States v. Peterson, 236 F.3d 848, 852-857 (7th Cir. 2001) (reversing Hobbs Act conviction for failure to prove interstate commerce element). Proof of an effect on interstate commerce is often particularly difficult in prosecutions under the Hobbs Act for the robbery of individuals. See, e.g., United States v. Wang, 222 F.3d 234, 238-240 (6th Cir. 2000), United States v. Collins, 40 F.3d 95 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1121 (1995). If you are uncertain whether a particular case would be appropriate to charge under the Hobbs Act, you should consult with the Organized Crime and Gang Section in the Criminal Division. See USAM 9-131.030.
[updated May 2011]
2 of 2
4/16/12 5:19 PM