Circumstantial Proof of “Pecuniary Value” and Mandatory Life Sentencing Under 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a) in Murder-for-Hire Prosecutions

Note on disposition: This decision is a Second Circuit summary order and therefore “do[es] not have precedential effect.” It is best read as applying—and extending the practical reach of—the Circuit’s published decision in United States v. Zhe Zhang, 135 F.4th 44 (2d Cir. 2025).

I. Introduction

United States v. Abreu (2d Cir. Mar. 18, 2026) concerns a murder-for-hire prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a) arising from the February 12, 2019 shooting death of Xin “Chris” Gu outside a Queens karaoke club. The Government’s theory was hierarchical: Allen Yu (the alleged заказчик) sought Gu’s murder; Yu’s nephew You You recruited Zhe Zhang; and Zhang recruited Antony Abreu as the shooter.

After a jury trial in the Eastern District of New York (Amon, J.), Abreu was convicted of (1) conspiracy to commit murder for hire, and (2) murder for hire (or aiding and abetting), and sentenced principally to life imprisonment. On appeal, Abreu raised two core issues:

  1. Sufficiency of the evidence: whether the trial evidence established an agreement involving an exchange of “anything of pecuniary value,” as required by § 1958(a).
  2. Sentencing: whether § 1958(a) mandates a life sentence when death results.

II. Summary of the Opinion

The Second Circuit affirmed both the convictions and the life sentence. On sufficiency, the Court held that the jury could reasonably infer a qualifying pecuniary arrangement from: (a) evidence that Yu promised business connections and support to the intermediaries, and (b) separate evidence that Abreu received a high-value Richard Mille watch from Zhang and described it as payment for work (“Dude owe me 100K so he gave me the watch as payment.”). On sentencing, the Court held that Abreu’s challenge was foreclosed by United States v. Zhe Zhang, which construed § 1958(a) as imposing a mandatory minimum life sentence when death results.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

1. United States v. Zhe Zhang, 135 F.4th 44 (2d Cir. 2025)

This was the controlling authority for two dispositive points:

  • Pecuniary value includes business connections: Abreu argued that “business connections and support” are not a “thing of pecuniary value.” The Court rejected that argument because Zhe Zhang already held “that the promise of providing business connections is sufficient to constitute something of pecuniary value within the meaning of the murder-for-hire statute.”
  • Mandatory life under § 1958(a): Abreu conceded his sentencing argument was foreclosed because Zhe Zhang held “that section 1958(a) imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment.”

Abreu thus functions as an application decision: it reaffirms that non-cash benefits with real economic utility can satisfy the statute, and that life is mandatory (at least within the Circuit’s current interpretation) when the murder-for-hire results in death.

2. United States v. Harvey, 746 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2014)

Harvey supplies the sufficiency-of-the-evidence framework: appellate review is de novo, but the defendant bears a “heavy burden” because the Court views evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, draws all inferences for the Government, and defers to the jury on credibility. This standard mattered because the Government’s proof of the quid pro quo was partly circumstantial—an area where deference to the jury’s inference-drawing is often decisive.

3. Green v. Dep't of Educ. of City of New York, 16 F.4th 1070 (2d Cir. 2021)

Green is invoked for appellate forfeiture/abandonment: Abreu argued in the district court that there was no proof he knew of his co-conspirators’ pecuniary arrangement, but he did not press that point in his opening appellate brief—raising it only in reply. Under Green, issues raised below but not pursued in the opening brief are treated as abandoned. This procedural ruling narrowed the appellate dispute and insulated the Government’s “aiding-and-abetting/conspiracy” theory from a knowledge-focused attack.

4. United States v. Babilonia, 854 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2017)

Babilonia supports the evidentiary principle that “post-agreement course of conduct” can be circumstantial evidence of the parties’ intent at the time the murder-for-hire was arranged—specifically, the intent to provide compensation. In Abreu, the watch evidence (receipt of a luxury item; Abreu’s own message framing it as payment) served as post-offense conduct from which a jury could infer an underlying compensation agreement.

5. United States v. Rosemond, 841 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2016)

Rosemond is cited for the culminating sufficiency formulation: the Court must credit every inference in the Government’s favor and defer to the jury’s credibility and weight assessments. This citation underscores why the Court did not require direct proof that “the watch was payment for the murder” so long as the inference was reasonable.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. The “pecuniary value” element can be proved without direct proof of an explicit payment-for-killing conversation

Section 1958(a) requires an exchange (or agreement to exchange) “anything of pecuniary value.” Abreu’s sufficiency attack focused on the alleged absence of proof that he personally agreed to be paid for the killing. The Court addressed this in two moves:

  1. Co-conspirator/aid-and-abet theory (procedurally protected): The Government argued Abreu need not have personally agreed to receive value if he conspired with others who did and aided/abetted the scheme. The Court did not reach the merits of a knowledge-based rebuttal because Abreu abandoned that argument under Green.
  2. Independent “payment to Abreu” theory (merits): Even if the Government had to show Abreu received value, the Court found the evidence sufficient: (a) Abreu admitted he received a Richard Mille RM11 watch from Zhang in 2019; (b) a company representative valued it at “at least $170,000”; and (c) Abreu’s own Instagram message described it as payment for work (“owe me 100K… watch as payment”). Although there was “no direct evidence” tying the watch to the murder, the jury could infer it was compensation for the shooting, and that inference could supply circumstantial evidence of the original agreement.

2. Non-cash economic benefits qualify as “pecuniary value”

To the extent the case turned on whether the promised consideration was “pecuniary,” the Court treated Zhe Zhang as dispositive: business connections, supply connections, and business “set up” assistance can constitute “something of pecuniary value.” In practical terms, the Court endorsed an economically functional view of consideration—value measured by real-world economic advantage rather than formal cash payment.

3. Mandatory life sentencing under § 1958(a) (when death results)

On sentencing, Abreu’s challenge failed because Zhe Zhang had already interpreted § 1958(a) to impose “a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment” in this posture. Abreu raised no other sentencing issues, and the Court therefore affirmed.

C. Impact

  • Reinforcement of a broad “pecuniary value” concept: Even though nonprecedential, Abreu signals that the Second Circuit will treat economically valuable intangibles (like business connections) and high-value items (like luxury watches) as readily fitting the statute’s compensation element—especially when corroborated by defendant admissions or statements characterizing the transfer as “payment.”
  • Greater evidentiary comfort with circumstantial “payment” proof: The Court’s reliance on post-offense transfers and social-media statements encourages prosecutors to use lifestyle evidence, admissions, and communications as circumstantial proof of the murder-for-hire bargain.
  • Appellate practice lesson: The abandonment ruling illustrates that a potentially significant limiting argument (lack of knowledge of the pecuniary quid pro quo) can be lost if not developed in the opening brief.
  • Sentencing certainty (within the Circuit): By applying Zhe Zhang, the decision further stabilizes the expectation that § 1958(a) murder-for-hire resulting in death triggers mandatory life in the Second Circuit, absent successful Supreme Court review or en banc reconsideration in a future case.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • “Sufficiency of the evidence” review: The appellate court asks whether any rational jury could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the record in the Government’s favor and deferring to the jury’s credibility calls.
  • “Circumstantial evidence”: Proof from which a fact may be inferred (e.g., receiving an expensive item and calling it “payment”), even without direct testimony of an explicit agreement.
  • “Anything of pecuniary value” (18 U.S.C. § 1958(a)): Not limited to cash; it can include property, services, opportunities, or connections that confer economic benefit.
  • “Aiding and abetting” (18 U.S.C. § 2): Liability for intentionally helping someone else commit the crime; the helper is punishable as a principal.
  • “Conspiracy”: An agreement to commit a crime; each conspirator can be liable for the agreed-upon unlawful objective and foreseeable acts in furtherance.
  • “Abandonment” on appeal: If an appellant does not raise an argument in the opening brief, the court may treat it as forfeited/abandoned even if raised below.
  • “Mandatory minimum”: A sentencing floor set by statute; if applicable, the judge cannot go below it regardless of typical sentencing discretion.

V. Conclusion

United States v. Abreu affirms murder-for-hire convictions and a life sentence by applying a broad, economically grounded understanding of “pecuniary value” and endorsing the use of circumstantial, post-offense payment evidence to prove the underlying quid pro quo. While nonprecedential, the order operationalizes the Second Circuit’s published holdings in United States v. Zhe Zhang, confirming that (1) valuable business connections can satisfy § 1958(a), (2) subsequent compensation can evidence the original bargain, and (3) when death results, § 1958(a) is treated in this Circuit as mandating life imprisonment.