6.18.1951-5 Hobbs Act - Property Defined The term includes money and other tangible and intangible “property” things of value. Comment Sand et al., supra, 50-4. In many cases, there will be no need to instruct the jury on the meaning of the term intangible property is involved, the court should include this instruction. “property.” When In 537 U.S. 393, 402 (2003), the Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc., Supreme Court recognized that the term property includes intangible as well as tangible things of value. However, the property must be transferrable. 133 Sekhar v. United States, S. Ct. 2720, 2725 (2013). In the jury convicted the defendant of Hobbs Act Sekhar, extortion because he sought to force the general counsel of the New York State Comptroller to recommend approval of a commitment to purchase shares in a fund managed by the firm on behalf of a retirement fund for state employees. 133 S. Ct. at Sekhar, defendant’s 2724. The Court held that the recommendation did not qualify as obtainable property and therefore could not support a conviction under the Hobbs Act. 133 S. Ct. at 2726. Sekhar, (Revised 11/2013)
6.18.1951-5 Hobbs Act - Property Defined The term “property” includes money and other tangible and intangible things of value. Comment Sand et al., supra, 50-4. In many cases, there will be no need to instruct the jury on the meaning of the term “property.” When intangible property is involved, the court should include this instruction. In Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc., 537 U.S. 393, 402 (2003), the Supreme Court recognized that the term property includes intangible as well as tangible things of value. However, the property must be transferrable. Sekhar v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2720, 2725 (2013). In Sekhar, the jury convicted the defendant of Hobbs Act extortion because he sought to force the general counsel of the New York State Comptroller to recommend approval of a commitment to purchase shares in a fund managed by the defendant’s firm on behalf of a retirement fund for state employees. Sekhar, 133 S. Ct. at 2724. The Court held that the recommendation did not qualify as obtainable property and therefore could not support a conviction under the Hobbs Act. Sekhar, 133 S. Ct. at 2726. (Revised 11/2013)
2014%20Chap%206%20HobbsAct%20final.docx