Section 1952 - Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises

42 Analyses of this statute by attorneys

  1. Travel Act

    Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.Don SamuelSeptember 1, 2015

    United States v. Barry, 888 F.2d 1092 (6th Cir. 1989)The Sixth Circuit holds that the use of the mails in a purely intrastate mailing is not sufficient to constitute a Travel Act violation. 18 U.S.C. §1952(a) punishes the use of any facility in interstate commerce, including the mail, with intent to commit or facilitate unlawful activity. This does not include the use of the mails which do not cross state boundaries.

  2. Health Care's Expanding Landscape of Criminal Anti-Bribery Enforcement

    Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLPMay 13, 2022

    As demonstrated in the Markovich case, EKRA is a new and viable option for prosecutors attacking bribery activity around substance abuse treatment, including payments in exchange for the referral of lab testing. Based on its statutory language, it is also a new tool for prosecuting bribery beyond the context of substance abuse treatment, at least where lab testing is concerned.C. The Federal Travel Act (18 U.S.C. § 1952) & State Commercial Bribery LawsAt first glance, Section 1952 of United States Code Title 18 would seem to have little application to bribery related to the provision of health care. The criminal statute is titled “Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises,” and is referred to as the “Travel Act” for short.

  3. The Travel Act

    Freeman LawJason FreemanJanuary 6, 2022

    The Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952, makes it a federal crime to travel, use the mail, or use any facility in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of furthering an “unlawful activity.”At the time of its enactment in 1961, the Travel Act was originally intended to give the federal government a leg up in the fight against organized crime. An example of the sort of situation that the Travel Act was intended to target is where a crime boss resided in one state and operated an illegal enterprise in another.

  4. EpiPen Ruling Could Embolden Private Anti-Kickback Claims

    Troutman PepperJune 3, 2021

    [4] 18 U.S.C. §1961(1). [5] 18 U.S.C. §1952(a). [6] 18 U.S.C. §1952(b).

  5. Lessons from Forest Park: What Providers Need to Know About New Health Care Fraud Risks

    K&L Gates LLPJune 21, 2019

    NOTES:[1] Criminal No. 3:16-CR-516-D (1) (N.D. Tex. Apr. 4, 2017). [2] 18 U.S.C. § 1952. [3] 18 U.S.C § 1952 (a)(1)–(3). [4] Texas Penal Code § 32.43.

  6. Feds Two-Step on Texas Sovereignty has Far-Reaching Compliance Implications

    Polsinelli PCStephen AngeletteFebruary 2, 2017

    A business arrangement that was previously considered "low-risk" under the Texas anti-kickback or bribery statutes—due to a lack of state government enforcement action—may now be exposed to a risk that the federal government may use the Travel Act to enforce previously unenforced state law against the arrangement. As Texas sovereignty wanes, business owners, investors, and providers will need to reassess business arrangements that could potentially expose them to the risk of criminal enforcement under the federal Travel Act.Background The charges brought by the US Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Texas (NDTX) in Forest Park under the Travel Act (18 U.S.C. § 1952) are novel and unprecedented, as: The charges require that federal prosecutors demonstrate that the defendants violated federal law by failing to comply with a state law that Texas has chosen not to enforce; NDTX's use of federal authority to enforce a previously unenforced criminal statute will create significant investment insecurity among Texas health care business owners, investors, and providers; and The enforcement of a state law by a federal authority effectively strips the Texas Attorney General of its discretionary enforcement authority which, to date, the Texas Attorney General has not exercised. According to the indictment and DOJ press release, Forest Park paid approximately $40 million in bribes and kickbacks to physicians, surgeons, and others in exchange for patient referrals to the physician-owned, out-of-network hospital.

  7. New Landmark Foreign Extortion Prevention Act Targets the Demand Side of Foreign Bribery Schemes

    Dorsey & Whitney LLPBeth ForsytheFebruary 2, 2024

    r nearly half a century, the FCPA has been the preeminent anti-corruption tool used by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).After the FCPA was amended in 1998, the FCPA anti-bribery provisions also extended to foreign firms and persons who cause, directly or through agents, an act in furtherance of such a corrupt payment to take place within the territory of the United States. The FCPA’s jurisdiction, however, has never extended to foreign officials who demand or receive the corrupt payments.Congress intentionally declined to extend the FCPA’s reach to foreign officials because of its concern for the “inherent jurisdictional, enforcement, and diplomatic difficulties” raised by the potential prosecution of non-citizens.Given the jurisdictional limitations of the FCPA, DOJ relied on other federal statutes to pursue foreign officials engaged in corruption, such as mail and wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343 and 1346), the Travel Act (18 U.S.C. § 1952), and money laundering.Each of these laws had their own limitations.At A Glance: Key Elements of the FEPAThe newly enacted FEPA is an amendment to the domestic bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. §201, not the FCPA. Nonetheless, the FEPA largely mirrors the FCPA statutory structure, subject to a few key distinctions. The FEPA makes it “unlawful for any foreign official . . . to corruptly demand, seek, receive, accept, or agree to receive or accept, directly or indirectly, anything of value” from any person while in the territory of the U.S., from an issuer, or from a domestic concern in exchange for—Being influenced in the performance of any official act;Being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such foreign official or person; orConferring any improper advantage, in connection with obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person.The FEPA defines any “person” or “domestic concern,” similarly to how those terms are defined i

  8. Mapping Future Enforcement in US Gaming Law Based on Recent UK Enforcement

    Perkins CoieBarak CohenJuly 12, 2023

    nts.Further complicating the legal compliance challenge is that, in addition to the governmental bodies with regulatory authority over gaming, there are eight different criminal and civil laws that fundamentally shape gambling at the federal level, governing activities within all the states. These include:The Wire Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1084.The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 5361-67.The Illegal Gambling Business Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1955.The Wagering Paraphernalia Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1953.The Johnson Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1953.The Anti-Lottery Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1175.The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-21.The Interstate Horseracing Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 3001-07.Furthermore, there are several ancillary, broadly applicable federal criminal laws that likewise affect state gaming. These laws include the federal money laundering statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957), the Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68), and the Travel Act (18 U.S.C. § 1952).Beyond FinCEN’s regulatory authority, multiple U.S. agencies and their investigatory arms enforce criminal and civil laws associated with gaming. These agencies include the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), which investigates criminal activity through the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and prosecutes offenses nationally through its multitude of lawyers. In addition, the Treasury has enforcement authority (beyond FinCEN) through the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which oversees taxation and other potentially relevant components.These are the principal federal entities expected to take primary enforcement action in relation to internet gaming in the United States. But what form will the enforcement action take, particularly as we move away from brick-and-mortar casinos with physical currency to increasingly web- and app-based gaming? Some answers may lie in recent enforcement activity by gaming authorities across the Atlantic.Recent UK EnforcementTwo recent enforcement actions

  9. Alabama Baseball, Iowa Football, and Things Everyone Should Know About Sports Gambling

    Jackson WalkerJune 5, 2023

    r international gambling businesses into states that otherwise prohibit gambling. For example, under the Wire Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1084, conducting a gambling business that makes use of interstate wire communication facilities to place wagers across state lines or to assist in placing such wagers is a federal crime, unless such betting is legal in both the state where the bet originated and the state where the bet was placed. See United States v. Cohen, 260 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2001).Other federal gambling laws include the Illegal Gambling Business Act, 18 U.S.C. §1955 (prohibiting interstate gambling businesses that are unlawful in the state where conducted) and the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 5361-67 (expressly addressing Internet-based gambling by outlawing accepting payments related to Internet gambling that is illegal in the place where the wager is placed, received or transmitted). The U.S. Department of Justice also prosecutes gambling under the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. §1952, when interstate commerce is used to conduct an illegal gambling business, under the RICO laws, 18 U.S.C. §1962, when there is a pattern of unlawful gambling offenses or collection of unlawful gambling debts, and under the money laundering statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957.Athletes, coaches, staff, and league officials may be tempted to be sanguine about gambling, thinking its “mostly legal,” everyone is doing it, and no one in my organization is going to “fix” games. But as the Alabama baseball situation demonstrates, even a simple phone call, even an innocent or overheard remark to a friend about injuries or lineup changes, can lead to someone placing an illegal bet, a suspicious activity report, and ultimately firings, suspensions, or even criminal charges.The bottom line for athletes is: stay away from gambling on sports even if all your friends and classmates are doing it. Whether you are a high school athlete, college athlete, or even a pro, your eligibility is at stake. And

  10. Echoes from the ABA White Collar Crime Conference 2022 in San Francisco

    Vinson & Elkins LLPElizabeth MatthewsMarch 10, 2022

    The speakers made clear that FCPA violations tend to cluster around related violations, such as wire fraud, money laundering, commodities fraud, and technical SEC rule violations. Last hinted that we can expect to see invocation of the Travel Act (18 U.S.C. § 1952) in the near future in addition to whatever other charges the factual circumstances support.Both speakers warned that compliance program presentations should include a companies’ most knowledgeable operations personnel, or if they are not in attendance, defense counsel should be very well-versed in the innerworkings of compliance beyond the slide deck.