Case 2:16-mj-01061-TJR Document 13 Filed 02/03/17 Page 14 of 29 (2016), the Court considered the extraterritorial application of two separate sections of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et~ ("RICO"), and applied the principles of Morrison to its analysis. In RJR Nabisco, the Court considered whether RICO's substantive prohibitions, contained in§ 1962, apply to conduct that occurs in foreign countries and whether RICO's private right of action, contained in§ 1964(c), applies to injuries that are suffered in foreign countries. In its analysis, the Court reiterated that the first step of the Morrison framework asks "whether the presumption against extraterritoriality has been rebutted - that is, whether the statute gives a clear, affirmative indication that it applies extraterritorially." Id. at 2101. When describing the second step of the Morrison analysis, the Court again indicated that it requires the reviewing court to look at the statute's "focus" to determine whether the case involves a domestic application of the statute. Id. The Court further elaborated, stating: If the conduct relevant to the statute's focus occurred in the United States, then the case involves a permissible domestic application even if other conduct occurred abroad; but if the conduct relevant to the focus occurred in a foreign country, then the case involves an impermissible extraterritorial application regardless of any other conduct that occurred in U.S. territory. Id. Given the facts of the case before it, and in light of the statutory provisions at issue, the Court did not employ the second step of the Morrison analysis as it described. Ultimately, the Court determined that the substantive prohibitions of§ 1962 of RICO may apply to foreign conduct and concluded that the presumption against extraterritoriality was rebutted but only with respect to certain applications of the statute. Id. at 2101-06. The Court also held that § 1964(c) requires a 14