First of all, Mr. Murphy, the particular offence, the drive-by shooting offence, does not have to have a direct material benefit link. I think there's a misunderstanding about where that element of the definition comes into play. It's only part of the definition of whether or not there is a criminal organization in existence. Once you establish that, you do not have to show that in the particular case the purpose of that offence was to gain a material benefit.
Secondly, there is case law that says a material benefit could be the kind of turf war, gaining of turf, that is often the basis for these kinds of intimidation offences. It doesn't necessarily have to be simply a straight financial benefit. If you're showing—