Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

YEGIAZARYAN, AKA EGIAZARYAN v. SMAGIN ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 22–381. Argued April 25, 2023—Decided June 22, 2023* Respondent Vitaly Smagin won a multimillion dollar arbitration award in 2014 against petitioner Ashot Yegiazaryan stemming from the mis- appropriation of investment funds in a joint real estate venture in Mos- cow. Because Yegiazaryan has lived in California since 2010, Smagin, who lives in Russia, filed suit to confirm and enforce the award in the Central District of California pursuant to the Convention on the Recog- nition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The District Court initially froze Yegiazaryan’s California assets before finally en- tering judgment against him. The District Court also entered several postjudgment orders barring Yegiazaryan and those acting at his di- rection from preventing collection on the judgment. While the action was ongoing, Yegiazaryan himself was awarded a multimillion dollar arbitration award in an unrelated matter and sought to avoid the Dis- trict Court’s asset freeze by concealing the funds, which were ulti- mately transferred to a bank account with petitioner CMB Monaco. In 2020, Smagin filed this civil suit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which provides a private right of action to “[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of” RICO’s substantive provisions. 18 U. S. C. §1964(c). As relevant, Smagin alleges Yegiazaryan and others worked together to frustrate Smagin’s collection on the California judgment through a pattern of wire fraud and other RICO predicate racketeering acts, in- cluding witness tampering and obstruction of justice. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that Smagin had failed —————— * Together with No. 22–383, CMB Monaco, fka Compagnie Monegasque de Banque v. Smagin et al., also on certiorari to the same court. 2 YEGIAZARYAN v. SMAGIN

Syllabus

to plead a “domestic injury” as required by RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. Euro- pean Community, 579 U. S. 325, 346. Smagin’s Russian residency weighed heavily in the District Court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit reversed. Rejecting the District Court’s rigid, residency-based ap- proach to the domestic-injury inquiry, the Ninth Circuit instead ap- plied a context-specific approach and concluded that Smagin had pleaded a domestic injury because he had alleged that his efforts to execute on a California judgment in California against a California resident were foiled by a pattern of racketeering activity that largely occurred in California and was designed to subvert enforcement of the judgment there. Held: A plaintiff alleges a domestic injury for purposes of §1964(c) when the circumstances surrounding the injury indicate it arose in the United States. Pp. 5–14. (a) The “domestic-injury” requirement for private civil RICO suits stems from RJR Nabisco, a case in which the Court was asked whether RICO applies extraterritorially. To answer the question, the Court applied the presumption against extraterritoriality, a canon of con- struction that provides “[a]bsent clearly expressed congressional in- tent to the contrary, federal laws will be construed to have onl