FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 19, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P U B L I S H ] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 15388

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 2 0 7 2 7 - CV- J EM L I Q U I D A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N O F B A N C O I N T E R C O N T I N E N T A L , S .A ., P la in tif f - C o u n te r - D e f

e n d a n t- A p p e lle e ,

v ersu s L U I S A L V A R E Z R E N T A , W A D E V I L L E I N V E S T M E N T S , L T D ., D e f e n d a n ts - C o u n te r - C la im a n ts - A p p e lla n ts , B A N K I N V E S T S .A ., e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 19, 2008)Honora ble L . Scott Coogler, United States District Judg e for the Northern District of * Alabama , sitti ngby

designation. The Commission, the appe llee here, is formally known as L a Comision de L iquidacion 1 Ad ministrativ a

de l B anc o Interc ontin e ntal. 2 B ef ore D U B IN A and K R A V IT C H , C i rc ui tJudg es , and C O O G L E R , D i stri ct * Judg e. K R A V IT C H , C i rc ui tJudg e: T h i s ci v i l R IC O an d frau d u l en ttran sfer case is a resulto f th e 2 0 0 3 co l l ap se o f B an co In t erco n t i n en t al S A (B an In t er), w h i ch atth att i m e w as am o n g th e l arg est bank s i n the D om i ni ca n R epub l i c. A ft eri t s c ol l apse , the af fa i rs of B anInt erw er e t aken ov erby the C om m i ss i on , a r ec ei vers hi p est abl i shed by the D om i ni ca n 1 g o v e rn m e n t. T h e C o m m is s io n b r o u g h t th is s u it a g a in s t L u is A lv a r e z R e n ta , a F l o ri d a b u si n essm an , cl ai m i n g th atR en t a, w i th th e h el p o f B an In t er i n si d ers, w rong ful l y di vert ed m i l l i on s i n B anInt erfund s t o fi nance other busi ness ventures an d p erso n al ex p en ses. T h ree R IC O cl ai m s an d o n e frau d u l en ttran sfer cl ai m w ere tri ed t o a j u ry, w hi c h r e turne d ave r di c tf orthe C om m i s s i on i n a l l r e s pe c t s . A f t e rtr e bl i ng of

the r a c ke t e e r i ng da m a ge s , the j udgm e ntt ot a l s appr oxi m a t e l y $177 m i l l i on. R e nt a now appe a l s , a r gui ng tha tthe e nt i r e c a s e s houl d ha ve be e n di s m i s s e d f orf orum non c onve ni e ns , tha tthe R I C O c l a i m s s houl d ha ve be e n di s m i s s e d f orunr i pe ne s s a nd because the st atut e c anno tappl y e xtra t erri t ori al l y, thathe i s e nt i t l ed t o j ud gm entasDef ault judgments wereentered ag ainst defendants Ba nkinvest and Interduty . They do 2 no t a pp e al. 3 a m a tte ro f

la w o rto r e m ittitu r , a n d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in d e n y in g p o s tj ud gm entre l i ef

. O ur re vi ew un covers no re vers i bl e e rr or. I . T he evi dence attri al , t aken i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the verdi ct , se e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W a r d, 486 F . 3d 1212, 1215 ( 11th C i r . 2007) , s how e d the f ol l ow i ng. A . T he P art i es D e f e nda nt - appe l l a ntR e nt a i s a dua l c i t i z e n of the U ni t e d S t a t e s a nd the D o m in ic a n R e p u b lic . I n a d d itio n to u n d e r g r a d u a te a n d g r a d u a te tr a in in g in e c o n o m ic s a n d f

in a n c e , R e n ta h a d y e a r s o f b u s in e s s e x p e r ie n c e a s a n a c c o u n ta n t, m a n a g e m e n t a n d f

in a n c ia l c o n s u lta n t, a n d a s m a n a g e ro rd ir e c to ro f v a r io u s f

a m ily co rp o rat i o n s an d tru st s. A tth e t i m e o f th e ev en t s i n q u est i o n , h e w o rk ed as a tu rn a r o u n d s p e c ia lis t; in p a r tic u la r , h e h e lp e d r e h ab ilita te d is tr e s s e d d e b t. R e n ta a n d h is f a m ily a ls o o w n e d s e v e r a l c o m p a n ie s a n d tru s ts , in c lu d in g s e p a r a te op er at i ng , fi nanci ng , and h ol di ng com pani es . O ne of tho se com pani es w as B an k i n v est , a d efen d an tb el o w b u tn o ta p arty t o th e ap p eal . B an k i n v esti s a 2 D o m in ic a n c o rp o r a tio n o f w h ic h R e n taw a s p r e s id e n t a n d w h ic h h is f a m ily c ontr ol l e d. R e nt a s t a t e d he us e d B a nki nve s ta s a ve hi c l e f orr a i s i ng c api t a l t o m a ke4

c om m e r c i a l l oa ns , the i nt e r e s ta nd f e e s f r om w hi c h w e r e pa i d t o B a nki nve s t , but th e C o m m i ssi o n p resen t ed ev i d en ce th atB an k i n v estw as u sed p ri m ari l y as a c ondui tt o m ove m one y f r om B a nI nt e rt o othe re nt i t i e s . B a nki nve s tha d c he c ki ng ac coun t s a tB anInt erand atT he Int ernat i on al B ank o f M i am i (T IB O M ) over w hi ch R ent a had si gn at ory autho ri ty a tal l pert i nentt i m es , even aft er , as expl ai ned m ore f ul l y be l ow , he s ol d B a nki nve s ti n A ugus t2001. R a m on B a e z - F i gue r oa w a s nota de f e nda nti n thi s c a s e , butpl a y e d a m a j or pa r ti n the s t ory . B a e z - F i gue r oa , a pr om i ne ntD om i ni c a n a nd R e nt a ’ s r e l a t i ve by m a rr i a ge , w a s the P r e s i de nta nd m a j or i ty ow ne rof

B a nI nt e r , a nd ha d e f

f e c t i ve co n tro l o v er i t s o p erat i o n s. L i k e R en t a, h e h ad a h an d i n sev eral o th er b u si n ess v e n tu r e s , in c lu d in g a s e r ie s o f d u ty f r e e s to r e s th a t e v e n tu a lly b e c a m e I n te r d u ty F re e, L t d. , a B ri t i sh V i rgi n Isl ands corporat i on and a defendantbel ow . B ae zF ig u e r o a a n d R e n ta e n te r e d in to a n a g r e e m e n t w h e r e b y R e n taw o u ld a tte m p t to r e habi l i t a t e the s truggl i ng duty f r e e s t or e s , i n pa r tby us i ng B a nki nve s t ’ s good c r e d it. L a te r , o n c e th e s to r e s w e r e o n th e irw a y to r e h ab ilita tio n , R e n tas o ld B anki nv es t(w hi ch by then h ad an equi ty s t ake i n the du ty f re e s t ores ) t o B ae zF i gue r oa i n A ugus t2001. R e nt a i s a l s o the s ol e di r e c t ora nd a m i nor i ty s ha r e hol de rof appe l l a nt W a d e v ille I n v e s tm e n ts , a c o rp o r a tio n o w n e d a n d c o n tr o lle d b y th e R e n taf a m ily .5

W a de vi l l e i s nota n ope r a t i ng c om pa ny . I t s s ol e purpos e i s t o ha ve a ba nk a c c ount atB an k A t l an t i c, fro m w h i ch R en t a p ays p erso n al an d b u si n ess ex p en ses. B . T h e B a n k T

ra n sf ers T he c e nt e rpi e c e of

thi s c a s e i s a s e r i e s of

ba nk tr a ns a c t i ons , oc c urr i ng b e tw e e n J a n u a ry 2 0 0 0 a n d F e b ru a ry 2 0 0 3 , w h ic h p r o c e e d e d in s im ila rp a tte rn s . T he part i es do no tdi sput e thatthese tra nsac t i on s occ urre d n or thatR ent a ordere d the m , butthe y s ha rpl y di s put e the i rna tur e a nd s i gni f i c a nc e . T he C om m i s s i on a r gue d, a nd the j ury be l i e ve d, tha tthe f unds tr a ns f

e r s w e r e s i m pl y l oot i ng of B anInt er . R ent a a rgued thatthe fund s tra nsfe rs w er e r eturns of hi s c api t al in v e s tm e n ts in , o rp a y m e n ts o n lo a n s th a t h e m a d e to , th e d u ty - f r e e s to r e s . In each tran sact i o n , R en t a w o u l d t ak e so m e st ep t o cau se B an In t er fu n d s, ty pi c a l l y he l d i n B a nI nt e r ’ s dol l a r - de nom i na t e d a c c ount s a tA m e r i c a n ba nks , t o be tr a n s f e rr e d to a n a c c o u n t o f

B a n k in v e s t ( a t T I B O M ) o rI n te r d u ty ( a t B a n k A tla n tic orH a m i l t on B a nk) . A l though the y a l l ha d the s a m e e f f e c t , na m e l y tr a ns f

e rr i ng m on eyfr om B anInt ert o a R ent a- control l ed ent i ty, the tra nsac t i on s t oo k sever al d if f e r e n t f o r m s . S o m e tim e s R e n tas ig n e d a le tte rto B a n I n te rr e q u e s tin g a s im p le tr a n s f e ro f B a n I n te r ’s f

u n d s to B a n k in v e s t. T y p ic a lly , th e le tte rr e q u e s t w o u ld s ta te thatthe re qu es t ed fund s w er e nee ded t o p ayon a l ett erof cr edi tfor w hi ch B a n k in v e s t w a s a g u a r a n to r . O n o th e ro c c a s io n s , R e n taw o u ld d ir e c t B a n I n te rtoRenta claimed he did not know whether B ankinvest’s account wa s overdrawn or had 3 sufficient funds to cover

these tra nsactions, bec ause henever reviewed B ankinvest’s account statements . To pick one e x ample, the evidenceshowed that Renta c aused B anInter to makea 4 $750,000 transfer from its account to Interduty ’s ac count at B ankAtlantic on or about May

31, 20 02 . Thre eda

ys later, $7 50 ,0 00 wa s trans ferre d f ro m Interd

uty ’sB ank

Atlanti ca c c ount to Wadeville. For example, in April 2001 Renta direc ted B anInter to debit B ankinvest’s account in the 5 amou nt o f $ 1. 25 mil lio n a

nd us ethefu

nd s toset upa

c ertif ic ateof depo sit at H amilton

B ank in favor of Groupwide Florida, a c ompany controlled by

Baez-Figueroa . 6 debi tB anki nv es t ’ s a cc ou ntatB anInt eri n a part i cul aram ou nt , and then d i re ct B an In ter to tran sf

erth o se fu n d s to so m e o th eren ti ty. B u t b ec au se B an k in v es t’ s a c c o u n t a t B a n I n te rw a s p e rp e tu a lly o v e r d r a w n , e a c h o f th e in itia l d e b its w a s , in subst ance , a l oan o r tra nsfe r of f un ds fr om B anInt ert o B anki nv es t . O n o ther 3 oc c a s i ons , B a nI nt e rw oul d, a tR e nt a ’ s r e que s t , i s s ue as t a ndby l e tt e rof c r e di tf or B an k i n v esti n fav o r o f an o th er B an k i n v estcred i t o r, su ch as T IB O M . In th o se c a s e s , B a n I n te ru ltim a te ly p a id o n e a c h le tte ro f c r e d it. A lth o u g h m o s t o f

th e tr a n s f

e r s w e r e in itia lly m a d e f r o m B a n I n te rto Int er du ty or t o B anki nv es t , the tra nsfe rr ed fund s di d n otre m ai n there l on g. R ather, th e e v id e n c e s h o w e d th a t o n m o s t o c c a s io n s , m o n e y tr a n s f e rr e d f r o m B a n I n te rto B a nki nve s tw a s s ubs e que nt l y tr a ns f e rr e d e l s e w he r e . S om e t i m e s the s e c ond tr a ns f e r e e w a s I nt e r duty , butf r e que nt l y the f

unds f ound the i rw a y i nt o the ha nds of ent i t i es control l ed by R ent a or B ae z- F i gu er oa. T ypi ca l l y, the se cond tra nsfe r w as 4 5 fo r th e ex actsam e am o u n tas th e req u estfo r fu n d s fro m B an In t er. T h ese7

s ubs e que nttr a ns f

e r s w e r e of

t e n c a rr i e d outthe s a m e da y , orw i thi n a f e w da y s , of th e r e q u e s t f

o rf u n d s f r o m B a n I n te r . O n s o m e o c c a s io n s f u n d s w e r e tr a n s f

e rr e d to I n te r d u ty , a n d u ltim a te ly u s e d to p a y its d e b ts , e v e n w h e n R e n ta( o rh is subo rdi nat es ac t i ng athi s di re ct i on ) r epre se nt ed t o B anInt erthatthe re qu es t ed fu n d s w ere t o b e u sed t o p ay o n a d i fferen tl ett er o f cred i tfo r w h i ch B an k In v est w as a guarant or. A l t oge the r , R e nt a e ndor s e d f or ty s i x s uc h tr a ns a c t i ons w hi c h r e s ul t e d i n the tran sfer o f $ 4 8 , 4 5 5 , 6 2 5 i n B an In t er fu n d s t o th e b an k acco u n t s o f In t erd u ty, ent i t i es control l ed by R ent a or B ae z- F i gu er oa, or, i n a fe w ca se s, thei r per sonal cr ed it o rs . O f th at $ 4 8 m il li o n , ab o u t $ 3 3 m il li o n en d ed u p in W ad ev il le, R en ta’s p e r s o n a l b a n k a c c o u n t. M ea n w h il e, th es e f

u n d s tra n sf

er s w er e n o t ack n o w led g ed o n B an In ter’s pu bl i c r ec ords. Indeed, B anInt er ’ s aud i t ors a tP ri ce W at erho use C oo pers w er e una w a r e of

the m unt i l a f

t e rB a nI nt e r ’ s c ol l aps e i n the s pr i ng of 2003. T he tr a n s f e r s w e r e b o o k e d a s “lo a n s ” o n a s e c r e t, p a r a lle l s e t o f a c c o u n tin g r e c o r d s . T hi s par al l el se tof bo ok s had i t s ow n com pu t erac coun t i ng sy st em and o pera t ed as a “ bank w i thi n a bank . ” O nl y tra nsac t i on s betw ee n ent i t i es control l ed by B ae zF i g e r o a we r e k e p to n th e p a r a l l e l b o o k s , k n o wn wi th i n th e b a n k a s th e “ VP P ort fol i o. ”8

O f c ou rs e, the “ l oans” i n the V P P ort fol i o w er e tre at ed di ff er ent l y f rom other l oans by B anInt er . N orm al l y, a c re di tcom m i tt ee w ou l d ass es s the vi abi l i ty of a l o a n b e f o r e ap p r o v i n g i t , a n d i two u l d ap p e a ro n th e p u b l i c b o o k s . B u tth e VP P or t f ol i o “ l oa ns ” t o B a nki nve s tw e r e appr ove d s ol e l y by M a r c os B a e z - C oc c o, B a nI nt e r ’ s E xe c ut i ve V i c e P r e s i de nt , a nd booke d on the s e c r e tpa r a l l e l a c c ount i ng syst em ath i s d i rect i o n . In ad d i t i o n t o th e su rrep t i t i o u s b o o k i n g , th ere w ere al so i rr egul ar i t i es abou tthe i nt er es tra t es att ac hed t o these “ l oans. ” T he prom i ss ory n o te s ( d e s c r ib e d b e lo w ) w h ic h o s te n s ib ly c o rr e s p o n d e d to th e “lo a n s ” to B anki nv es tw er e s om et i m es re corded i n the paral l el bank atdi ff er enti nt er es tra t es tha n the not e s s t a t e d on the i rf a c e . I n f a c t , s om e w e r e r e c or de d a s z e r o pe r c e nt l oans. B uton ce the D om i ni ca n g ov ernm entatt em pt ed t o arr ange a m er ger betw ee n B a n I n te ra n d B a n c o d e l P r o g r e s o , th e V P P o r tf o lio lo a n s w e r e h u rr ie d ly m o v e d to the publ i c books a nd, a tB a e z - C oc c o’ s di r e c t i on, w e r e a l l gi ve n a tw e l ve pe r c e nt in te r e s t r a te . P u b lic a c k n o w le d g m e n t o f th e V P P o r tf

o lio lo a n s s ig n if

ic a n tly a lte r e d B a n I n te r ’s b a la n c e s h e e t. R e n ta m a in ta in e d th a t h e d id n o t k n o w ab o u t th e p a r a lle l b o o k s . C . T he N ot es E ac h tra nsfe r of f

un ds desc ri bed abo ve corre spon ded t o a prom i ss ory not e, ora s i m i l a rD om i ni c a n i ns trum e ntc a l l e d a n uni c a de c a m bi o, s i gne d by R e nt a onRenta argued that, g iven the frequency with which money

moved betwe en B anInter a nd 6 the other entities at issue, the notes did not necessa rily correspond to the bank tra nsfer s. There was ample evidenc e from which the jury could re ject this conclusion. Most importantly , the notes were date d to appea r close in time to the tra

nsfers, even if Renta did not sign them on the day indicated, a

nd the notes ty

pically were for the identical amount as the corresponding transfer. These promissory notes form the ba sis for the RI CO predicate ac ts of mail and wire 7 fra ud, the Commiss ion arguing that Renta lacke d any intent to repay

the notes at the time they were endor sed and tra

nsmitt ed. 9 be ha l f of B a nki nve s t . I n othe rw or ds , e a c h not e os t e ns i bl y pr om i s e d t o r e pa y the

6 7 s a m e a m ounta s one of

R e nt a ’ s r e que s t s f

orf unds ors e c ur i ty f

r om B a nI nt e r . T he no t es ost ensi bl y obl i gat ed B anki nv es tt o repay B anInt erthe sa m e a m ou ntB anInt er h a d ju s t tr a n s f

e rr e d to B a n k in v e s t, o rw h ic h it e v e n tu a lly p a id a c r e d ito ro n b e h a lf of B anki nv es t . T he prom i se s t o repay w er e und ert aken by B anki nv es teven w hen B an In t er tran sferred th e req u est ed fu n d s t o In t erd u ty’ s acco u n t s, n o tB an k i n v est ’ s. T he C om m i s s i on a r gue d tha tthe s e not e s w e r e s ha m s i nt e nde d t o “ pape rthe f i l e , ” tha ti s , t o gi ve the tr a ns a c t i ons the appe a r a nc e of l e gi t i m a c y . S uf

f i c i e nt r e c o r d e v id e n c e s u p p o r ts th is c h a r a c te r iz a tio n th a t ar e a s o n ab le ju ry c o u ld a g r e e . F i rs t , no ne of the no t es w er e e ver r epai d. M oreover, R ent a a ckno w l edged that m os tof the not e s w e r e nots i gne d on the da t e i ndi c a t e d. R a the r , the doz e ns of n o te s w e r e s ig n e d m o s tly in tw o b a tc h e s –o n e in 2 0 0 0 o r2 0 0 1 , th e o th e rin N ov em ber or D ec em ber 200 2 – and n otas the proceeds of e ac h “ l oan” w er e di sburse d. In contra st , the fund s t o w hi ch the no t es corr es po nd ed w er e di sburse dThese transac tions formed the ba sis for the claim under F lorida’s Unifor m Fra udulent 8 Transf er A ct. See F la. Stat. § 726.101 et seq. 10 ati rr egul ari nt erval s over athree ye arperi od . T hu s, the j ury c ou l d con cl ud e that m os tof the not e s w e r e s i gne d i n a s i gni ng s pr e e , r a the rtha n, a s R e nt a s t a t e d, si gn ed i n the ordi narycourse of bu si ness . A dd i t i on al l y, R ent a t es t i fi ed thatun der D o m in ic a n la w a n u n ic a d e c a m b io m u s t b e s e c u r e d b y c o lla te r a l, b u t th a t h e d id n o tk n o w i f

th e u n i c a s h e s i g n e d o n b e h a l f o f B a n k i n v e s twe r e c o l l a t e r a l i z e d . No evi dence w as prod uced thatany c ol l at er al exi st ed. T he un l aw ful l ac k o f c ol l at er al c ontr i but e d t o the pl a us i bi l i ty of the i nf e r e nc e , i nvi t e d by the C om m i s s i on a nd d r a w n b y th e ju ry , th a t th e n o te s w e r e h ig h ly irr e g u la rtr a n s a c tio n s a t am in im u m . F i na l l y , R e nt a a dm i tt e d tha the , orhi s s ubor di na t e s a c t i ng a thi s di r e c t i on, fr equent l y use d fun ds he re qu es t ed fr om B anInt erfor apu rpose other than that s ta te d in th e r e q u e s t. F o re x a m p le , R e n taa d m itte d th a t e v e n w h e n h e s ta te d to B anInt erthatre qu es t ed fund s w er e t o b e use d t o p ayon a l ett erof cr edi tfor w hi ch B a nki nve s tw a s a gua r a nt or , he w oul d us e the f unds f ors om e othe rpurpos e i f he tho ug hti tm ore pres si ng . G i ven R ent a’ s a dm i tt ed di sr egar d o f busi ness form al i t i es a nd the s us pi c i ous c i r c um s t a nc e s unde rw hi c h the not e s i s s ue d, the j ury c oul d ha ve perm i ss i bl y c on cl ud ed thatthe no t es w er e i nt ended t o p aperthe fi l e. D . T h e C u rren cy E

xch a n g e T

ra n sf ers 8 I n a ddi t i on t o the tr a ns f e r - a nd- not e l oot i ng s c he m e , R e nt a w a s i nvol ve d i n a11

s e pa r a t e s c he m e tha tc a us e d $10. 5 m i l l i on i n l os s e s t o B a nI nt e ra s a r e s ul tof c u rr e n c y e x c h a n g e o v e r d r a f t tr a n s a c tio n s . I n th e s e tr a n s a c tio n s , R e n taw r o te c he c ks f r om B a nki nve s t ’ s pe s o- de nom i na t e d a c c ounta tB a nI nt e rt o the Q ui s e y a na c urr e nc y e xc ha nge i n the D om i ni c a n R e publ i c . M os tof the c he c ks w e r e c e r t i f

i e d; th at is, B an In ter g u ar an teed th at th er e w er e s u ff icien t fu n d s in B an k in v es t’ s a c c ountf orthe tr a ns a c t i on, a nd i f the r e w e r e not , i tpr om i s e d t o c ove rthe d i fferen ce. O n ce th e ch eck s w ere t ak en t o Q u i seyan a, i tcash ed th e ch eck s, co n v ert ed th e fu n d s i n t o d o l l ars, an d tran sferred th e fu n d s t o W ad ev i l l e. B ecau se B a nki nve s tw a s ove r dr a w n, B a nI nt e rs uppl i e d the f unds . I n the s e ve n da y pe r i od b e tw e e n M a r c h 2 0 a n d 2 6 , 2 0 0 3 , R e n tae n d o r s e d $ 1 0 .5 m illio n o f tr a n s f e r s in th is pa tt e rn. E . Ch a ra cteri

zi n gth e T

ra n sf ers A s not e d, R e nt a di d notdi s put e tha the e ndor s e d the f unds tr a ns f

e r s a nd the not e s . R a the r , he c ont e nds the tr a ns f e r s t o hi m r e pr e s e ntr e pa y m e ntof m one y he pers on al l y a dv ance d t o h el p turn aroun d the du ty f re e s t ores . T hu s, the ce ntra l f a c tu a l d is p u te in th e c a s e is w h e th e rth e s e tr a n s f e r s w e r e b o n a f

id e lo a n p a y m e n ts o rm e r e lo o tin g . I mp o r t a n t l y i n th i s r e g a r d , Ba n k i n v e s tc h a n g e d o w n e r s h i p d u r i n g th e t i me pe r i ods a ti s s ue , a s B a nki nve s tw a s s ol d by R e nt a t o B a nI nt e r . T he s a l e a ndWhen B ankinv e st w a s so ld to B a e z-F iguero a , it a ssume d Interd

uty ’sdebts . Renta 9 direc ted B anInter to debit B ankinvest’s account in the amount of some $37.6 milli on, which wa s 12 m e r ge rdoc um e nt s a r e s i gni f i c a nte vi de nc e c onc e rni ng the na tur e of the tran sact i o n s ati ssu e. F u rth er b ack g ro u n d i s n ecessary to u n d erst an d w h y. B ef ore the event s a ti ss ue, B anInt erhad m ade l oans t o the du ty f re e s t ores c ontr ol l e d by B a e z - F i gue r oa . T he s t or e s w e r e f i na nc i a l l y di s tr e s s e d, how e ve r , a nd w er e h av in g d ifficu lty r ep ay in g th e lo an s. In 1 9 9 7 , B ae z- F ig u er o a s o u g h t R en ta’s hel p i n res t ori ng thei r profi t abi l i ty. A tthatt i m e, ea ch of the du ty f re e s t ores w as ow ne d by a s e pa r a t e c orpor a t i on c ontr ol l e d by B a e z - F i gue r oa ; a ts om e l a t e rpoi nt th e y w e r e c o n s o lid a te d in to o n e c o m p a n y , I n te r d u ty . W h e n R e n taw a s b r o u g h t in t o tu rn a r o u n d th e s t o r e s i n 1 9 9 7 , h e n e e d e d t o i m p r o v e th e i rc r e d i two r th i n e s s . He t e s t i f i e d tha the us e d B a nki nve s t , w hi c h ha d good c r e di t , t o borr ow m one y on b e h a lf o f I n te r d u ty in o r d e rto s e c u r e m o r e f a v o r ab le f

in a n c in g f

o rth e s to r e s . B anki nv es tal so ob t ai ned an equ i ty s t ake i n Int er du ty. T hu s, B anki nv es tw as c a rry in g d e b t a r is in g f

r o m lo a n s f

o rth e b e n e f

it o f I n te r d u ty w h e n R e n tas o ld B an k i n v est(i n cl u d i n g i t s o w n ersh i p st ak e i n In t erd u ty) t o B aez-F i g u ero a i n A u g u st 2 0 0 1 . C r i t i c a l l y , R e nt a a l s o a l l e ge s tha ts om e of tha tde btw a s t o hi m ; tha ti s , he c o n tr ib u te d s u b s ta n tia l a m o u n ts o f p e r s o n a l c ap ita l to th e d u ty f r e e s to r e s v e n tu r e . T hu s, the tra nsfe rs of fund s f rom B anInt ert o B anki nv es tand Int er du ty, w hi ch 9us e d topa y of f I nterd uty ’sdebts . B e c a

us eB ankinv e st w a s o verd ra wn , th at amou

nt t hen b e c ame a li a b il it y o f B ankinv e s t to B anInter , wh ichw a s a s s ume d b y B ankinv e s t’ s p urc h a s er , B a e zFigueroa . Renta admitted that he did not know at the time he ordered thedebit whether Ba nkinvest’s ac count at B anInter had sufficient funds to cover this transaction, but stated that he assumed it did, beca

use (according to Renta) B anInter a sked him to use Ba nkinvest to pay Interduty ’s liabilities in this fashion. Not coincidentally , by

the time of trial, Renta ag ain controlled theduty fre e stores, which had $37 million less debt than when Renta originally took them over. 13 ty pi c a l l y f

ound the i rw a y i nt o R e nt a ’ s ha nds , r e pr e s e nt e d a r e pa y m e ntof l oa ns he m a d e . R e n ta f

u r th e rm a in ta in e d th a t h e a n d B a e z - F ig u e r o a c o n te m p la te d th is a rr a n g e m e n t w h e r e b y R e n ta c o u ld in je c t o rr e m o v e p e r s o n a l f u n d s a s n e e d e d in h is d i scret i o n . F u rth er, R en t a m ai n t ai n ed th atth i s arran g em en tw as essen t i al l y a ge nt l e m e n’ s a gr e e m e ntbe tw e e n hi m s e l f a nd B a e z - F i gue r oa , c ons um m a t e d on a h a n d s h a k e a n d n o t r e d u c e d to w r itin g . O f c o u r s e , if

th e ju ry b e lie v e d h is t e s t i m ony , i ts houl d ha ve f ound f orR e nt a , be c a us e the f

unds tr a ns f

e r s w oul d be p aym en t s o f b o n a fi d e l i ab i l i t i es. If R en t a i n

j ect ed p erso n al fu n d s i n t o th e d u ty free st o re v en tu re, B an k i n v est w oul d i nde e d ha ve s ubs t a nt i a l l i abi l i t i e s t o hi m . T hus , one w oul d e xpe c tthe do cum ent s c on sum m at i ng the sa l e of B anki nv es tt o B ae z- F i gu er oa t o rec og ni ze the s e obl i ga t i ons . T he y do not , ora tl e a s t , the r e w a s s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e f

orthe j ury t o r e j e c tthi s c ha r a c t e r i z a t i on. T he s a l e doc um e nt s do nots pe c i f i c a l l y l i s tthe e xi s t e nc e ora m ountof

a ny de bt s ow e d by B a nki nve s tt o R e nt a . R a the r , the agre em entprov i ded thatR ent a r epre se nt ed thatB anki nv es t ’ s onl y l i abi l i t i es w er eIt is important to note that the saledocuments spec ifically state that B ankinvest has 10 overdraft liabilities to BanInter. 14 ( i) th o s e to B a n I n te ro rr e la te d e n titie s , in c lu d in g I n te r d u ty , a n d ( ii) c r e d it 10 obl i ga t i ons w i th othe rba nks di r e c t l y ori ndi r e c t l y gua r a nt e e d by B a nI nt e r . T he a gr e e m e ntdi d nots pe c i f i c a l l y s t a t e tha tB a nki nve s tow e d R e nt a orW a de vi l l e $30 m i l l i on . R ent a tri es t o argue thatthe agree m enti nd i re ct l y r ef er ence d thi s a l l eged l i ab i l i ty, b ecau se i tn o t ed th atth e sal e w as su b j ectt o l i ab i l i t i es rel at ed t o In t erd u ty, w hi ch i ncl ud ed the al l eged l i abi l i ty t o h i m . B utthe sa l e docum ent s har dl y c om pel thi s c onc l us i on, a nd the j ury w a s f r e e t o di s be l i e ve R e nt a ’ s c ha r a c t e r i z a t i on of these tra nsac t i on s. T he B anki nv es tsa l e docum ent s s t at e thatthe com pany had l i abi l i t i es re l at ed t o Int er du ty, bu tthey do n otst at e thatany of tho se l i abi l i t i es ar e t o R ent a. A tbest , the sa l e docum ent s a re am bi gu ou s, and d i d n otcom pel the court o r th e j u ry t o accep tR en t a’ s st o ry. R ent a a l so m ade num er ou s i ncon si st entor i m pl ausi bl e s t at em ent s w hi ch m a y h a v e u n d e r m in e d h is c r e d ib ility in s ta tin g th a t B a n k in v e s t o w e d h im m o n e y . F ore xa m pl e , he a dm i tt e d t e l l i ng i nc ons i s t e nts t or i e s aboutthe purpos e s of the f unds tr a ns f

e r s – t e l l i ng B a nI nt e ra nd T I B O M tha tthe y w e r e t o pa y on l e tt e r s of c r e d it f o rw h ic h B a n k in v e s t w a s liab le , b u t f r e q u e n tly tr a n s f

e rr in g f u n d s to W adevi l l e, hi s per sonal expense ac coun t , or t o Int er du ty, w hi ch then tra nsfe rr ed the m t o W a de vi l l e . A nd i tappe a r s R e nt a ne ve rr e pr e s e nt e d t o B a nI nt e rtha tthe15

f u n d s h e r e q u e s te d w e r e r e p a y m e n t o f lo a n s b y h im . R e n taa ls o s ta te d th a t h e d id no tneed do cum ent at i on concerni ng hi s i nj ec t i on of fund s i nt o the du ty f re e s t ores because he had adequat e c ol l at er al for the l oans, nam el y, shar es of the du ty f re e st ores . B utthe evi dence s ho w ed thatR ent a w as re qu i re d t o rel i nq ui sh tho se shar es a s c o lla te r a l f

o ra n o th e rlo a n . I n s h o r t, a lth o u g h th e ju ry w o u ld h a v e b e e n f r e e to a c c e ptR e nt a ’ s t e s t i m ony tha tthe tr a ns f e r s t o hi m w e r e pa y m e nt s of l oa ns he m a de to th e d u ty f

r e e s to r e s , th e r e w e r e a ls o a m p le g r o u n d s f o rit to r e je c t th is c h a r a c te r iz a tio n o f

th e tr a n s a c tio n s . T hus , be c a us e the r e w a s a s uf f i c i e ntba s i s f

orthe j ury t o c onc l ude tha tthe fund s tra nsfe rs di d n otre pres entre paym entof l oans by R ent a t o the du ty f re e s t o r e s , th e j u ry c o u l d p e r m i s s i b l y f i n d th a tR e n t a h a d n o r i g h tt o th e f u n d s . As e xpl a i ne d i n pa r tI I , thi s a f f e c t s the a na l y s i s of

the s uf f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e on th e R IC O cl ai m s. F. T he Fal lout T IB O M offi ci al s bec am e i nt er es t ed i n suspi ci ou s a cc ou ntac t i vi ty a t B a nki nve s ti n O c t obe r2002. T he y appr oa c he d R e nt a , w ho i n the pr oc e s s of expl ai ni ng the ac coun tac t i vi ty s t at ed thathe m ai nt ai ned fi nanci al and o pera t i on al control of B anki nv es t“ pu rs uantt o an agreement w i th o ther s hare ho l ders . ” O nce i tbeca m e e vi dentthatB anInt erw as i n fi nanci al di stre ss , there w asWe u se“ Renta”to re fer to b oth a pp e lla nts , a s Wadevil leis c ontroll e d b y Renta and is 11 not separately

represente d. 16 a l l e ge dl y a n a tt e m pt e d m e r ge rw i th B a nc o de l P r ogr e s o, a nothe rD om i ni c a n ba nk, w hi c h w a s e nc our a ge d by the D om i ni c a n gove rnm e nt . R e nt a pl a y e d a pa r ti n the ne got i a t i ons . T he m e r ge rw a s ne ve rc ons um m a t e d, butR e nt a a r gue s tha tthe m e r ge rdoc um e nt s s uppor thi s the ory of the c a s e . T hi s i s be c a us e i n the d o c u m e n ts , B a e z - F ig u e r o a a c k n o w le d g e d h is p e r s o n a l liab ility o n $ 4 5 m illio n in l i abi l i t i es of B anki nv es tand Int er du ty t o B anInt er . (A s the fund s tra nsfe rs effecti v el y ch an g ed B an k i n v est ’ s al l eg ed l i ab i l i ty t o R en t a i n t o a B an k i n v est l i abi l i ty t o B a nI nt e r , B a e z - F i gue r oa ’ s a c know l e dgm e nts uppos e dl y va l i da t e d the exi st ence of a B anki nv es tdebtt o R ent a. ) B uti n the m er ger docum ent s B ae zF i gue r oa di d nota c know l e dge l i abi l i ty on a l l of B a nki nve s t ’ s de bt , a nd the dam ages soug hthere encom pass the am ou nthe di d n otac kn ow l edge. T he m er ger do cum ent s do n othel p R ent a. U ltim a te ly , B a n I n te rc o llap s e d in th e s p r in g o f 2 0 0 3 . T h is s u it f

o llo w e d in 2 0 0 4 . Itw as acco m p an i ed b y p aral l el ci v i l an d cri m i n al p ro ceed i n g s ag ai n st R ent a, B ae z- F i gu er oa, and B ae z- C occo i n the D om i ni ca n R epub l i c. II. O n appe a l , R e nt a a r gue s ( i ) tha tthe C om m i s s i on’ s R I C O c l a i m s a r e not 11 r i pe , ( i i ) tha tR I C O doe s notappl y e xtr a t e rr i t or i a l l y ordoe s notappl y t o theSee Maiz v. Virani, 253 F .3d 641, 654 (11th Cir. 2001) (RI CO standing) ; Reahard v. 12 L ee Cty ., 30 F.3d 1412, 1415 ( 11th Cir. 1994) (ArticleIIIripene ss); United States v. MacA llist er, 160 F .3d 1304, 1306-07 (11th Cir. 1998) (ex trater ritorial application of a statute); Action Marine , Inc. v. Continental Carbon Inc., 481 F .3d 1302, 1309 (11th Cir. 2007) (judgment as a matter of law); United States v. R & FProperties of Lake County, Inc., 433 F .3d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 2005) (denial of motion to dism iss). See F ord v. B rown, 319 F .3d 1302, 1308 (11th Cir. 2003) (for um non conveniens) ; 13 Frederick v. Kirby

Tankships, Inc., 205 F .3d 1277, 1287 (11th Cir. 2000) (post-judgment relief under Rule 60) . 17 pu t at i vel y e xtra t erri t ori al cond uctati ss ue here, (i i i ) thathe shou l d h ave been g ran t ed j u d g m en tas a m att er o f l aw o n th e R IC O cl ai m s, an d (i v ) th atth e case s h o u ld b e d is m is s e d , o rth e ju d g m e n t r e m itte d , f o rf a ilu r e to p le a d f

r a u d w ith pa r t i c ul a r i ty . W e r e vi e w the s e i s s ue s de novo. 12 R e n ta a ls o a r g u e s ( v ) th a t th e e n tir e c a s e s h o u ld h a v e b e e n d is m is s e d in fa vo r of aD om i ni ca n forum , and (vi ) thatpo stj ud gm entre l i ef i s w arra nt ed base d on ne w l y - di s c ove r e d e vi de nc e . W e r e vi e w the s e de c i s i ons f orabus e of di s c r e t i on. 13 I I I . A . R IC O R i

p en ess R e n ta f ir s t a r g u e s th a t b e f

o r e th e C o m m is s io n c a n s u e h im u n d e rR I C O , it m ustpu rs ue any c on tra ctual re m edi es un der the prom i ss ory not es agai nstB ae zF i gue r oa . B a e z - F i gue r oa i s the a l l e ge dl y r e s pons i bl e pa r ty be c a us e w he n he b o u g h t B a n k in v e s t, h e a s s u m e d its liab ilitie s to B a n I n te r . A lth o u g h R e n talab e lsRI CO sta ndingis re ally

jus t a he ightene d p ro ximatec a us atio n s tandard , a s it

re quire s a 14 c laima nt to p ro vethat hewa s in jure d in hisbu sin e ss o r p ropert

y “by re a so n o f”theRI CO violation. 18 U.S.C . § 1964(c) ; First Nationwide B ank v. Ge lt FundingGrp., 27 F .3d 763, 767 (2nd Cir. 1994) (RI CO standing require s predicate ac ts, injury to business or proper

ty , and causation). But the c onstruction urg ed by Renta that damag es must be “c lear and def inite,” Denney , 443 F.3d at 267 (citation omitted), although sometimes stated as a sta nding re quire ment, is b e tter f

ra me d a s o neof

ripene ss. 18 h is a r g u m e n t la c k o f

s ta n d in g a n d s o m e c a s e s u s e th e s a m e la n g u a g e , h e is r e a lly 14 a r gui ng tha tthe C om m i s s i on’ s c l a i m s a r e unr i pe – tha ti s , i t s da m a ge s a r e t oo un ce rt ai n for a c l ai m t o h ave a cc rued – b ec ause i tm i gh tgetsom e of i t s m on ey b a c k e ls e w h e r e . R e n ta r e lie s c h ie f ly o n S e c o n d C ir c u it c a s e la w c o n c lu d in g th a t a R IC O pl ai nt i ff’ s dam ages m ustbe “ cl ea r a nd defi ni t e” before a c l ai m ac crues. S ee , e . g. , D e nne y v. D e ut s c he B a nk A G , 443 F . 3d 253, 267 ( 2nd C i r . 2006) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . H e a r gue s thi s he i ght e ne d s t a nda r d of c e r t a i nty i n pl e a di ng a nd pr ovi ng da m a ge s pr e ve nt s a c c rua l of the s e c l a i m s , be c a us e B a nI nt e rha s noty e tr e a c he d a n etl o ss fi g u re b y co l l ect i n g o n th e d eb t s. T h is a r g u m e n t is u n p e r s u a s iv e . F ir s t, o u ro p in io n in A r ab ia n A m e r ic a n O il C o . v . S ca rf

o n e, 9 3 9 F .2 d 1 4 7 2 , 1 4 7 8 -7 9 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ), ar g u ab ly re jects R en ta’s p r e m is e , a s it p e r m its R I C O c la im s e v e n w h e n a b r e a c h o f c o n tr a c t c la im w o u ld a l s o l i e a ga i ns tthe R I C O de f e nda nt . O the rc i r c ui t s ha ve r e j e c t e d the “ c l e a ra nd defi ni t e” st andard for ac crual of a R IC O cl ai m ou tri gh t , ho l di ng thata c l ai m m ay accru e ev en w h en th e am o u n to f l o ss m ay b e red u ced b y o th er l aw su i t s. T h ese c our t s hol d tha tthe pos s i bi l i ty of r e c ove ry on othe rc l a i m s a f f e c t s the a m ountof19

R I C O da m a ge s , notthe a c c rua l of the R I C O c l a i m . S e e , e . g. , G r i m m e ttv. B r ow n, 75 F . 3d 506, 516- 17 ( 9th C i r . 1996) . E ve n a s s um i ng w i thoutde c i di ng tha tthe S e c ond C i r c ui t ’ s “ c l e a ra nd de f i ni t e ” s t a nda r d i s the c orr e c tone a nd i s c ons i s t e nt w ith A r ab ia n A m e r ic a n O il, it d o e s n o t r e q u ir e th e m e tap h y s ic a l c e r ta in ty in da m a ge s tha tR e nt a s ugge s t s , a nd he c oul d notobt a i n r e l i e f the r e unde r . A ppl y i ng the “ cl ea r a nd defi ni t e” st andard, the S ec on d C i rc ui thas c on cl ud ed thatthe m er e p o s s ib ility o f

a s ta te la w c la im f

o rf r a u d o rb r e a c h o f

c o n tr a c t d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r ily r e nde rR I C O c l a i m s pr e di c a t e d on f r a ud unr i pe . T hi s i s pa r t i c ul a r l y true w he n the unde r l y i ng de bti s uns e c ur e d a nd othe rr e c ove ry i s unl i ke l y be c a us e the de f e nda nt has s tri pp ed a c orpo ra t e def endantof as se t s. G IC C C api t al v T ec hn ol og y F i nance G rp. , 30 F . 3d 28 9, 29 3 (2n d C i r. 19 94 ). (C on tra stthatsi tuat i on t o o ne w here a se cure d d ebt or-pl ai nt i ff has notye tfore cl osed on col l at er al , m ea ni ng dam ages have no tye tbeen i ncurred or ar e notas ce rt ai nabl e w i th the re qu i si t e c l ar i ty. S ee M o t o ro l a C red i tC o rp . v . U zan , 3 2 2 F . 3 d 1 3 0 , 1 3 6 -3 8 (2 n d C i r. 2 0 0 3 ), an d F i rst N at i on w i de B ank, 27 F . 3d at76 8-69 . ) I n othe rw or ds , the r e i s no pe rs e rul e – i n thi s C i r c ui t , the S e c ond C i r c ui t , or el se w here – thata pl ai nt i ff m ustpu rs ue everyother a venu e of r ec ov ery, such as r e a l i z a t i o n o n c o l l a t e r a l o rc l a i ms f o rf r a u d o rb r e a c h o f

c o n tr a c t , b e f

o r e h i s RI CO cl ai m i s r i pe. N or i s there a perse rul e t o the contra ry . R ather, w hether apl ai nt i ff20

m ustpu rs ue other r em edi es before a R IC O cl ai m depend s on w hether tho se other c o n tin g e n c ie s a r e s u f

f ic ie n tly lik e ly to m itig a te th e p la in tif f’s lo s s th a t d a m a g e s in the R IC O ca se ca nn otbe as ce rt ai ned, or m ayno thave occurre d atal l . R IC O need n o t n e c e s s a r ily b e th e c la im o f la s t r e s o r t, b u t n e ith e rc a n a p la in tif f s e e k to tr e b le dam ages thathe di d n otac tual l y i ncur. W ith th e s e p r in c ip le s in m in d , w e d o n o t b e lie v e th e C o m m is s io n ’s c la im is u n r ip e s im p ly b e c a u s e th e C o m m is s io n h a s n o t p u r s u e d c o n tr a c tu a l r e m e d ie s , if an y, ag ai n stB aez-F i g u ero a. F i rst , th e n o t es p ro b ab l y are n o ten fo rceab l e co n tract s; they a re sham s l ac ki ng consi dera t i on . T he no t es w er e i ss ued u nd erhi gh l y i rr egul ar ci rcu m st an ces, B an In t er n ev er t o o k st ep s t o en fo rce th em ag ai n stB an k i n v est before the bank ’ s c ol l apse , and ass um i ng the no t es w er e s i gn ed i n a si gn i ng spre e, m a ny of the ba nk tr a ns f

e r s t o w hi c h the y os t e ns i bl y c orr e s ponde d c oul d notha ve been consi dera t i on for the no t es . T he tra nsac t i on s a re m ore pl ausi bl y c hara ct er i ze d a s c onve r s i on tha n f

r a udul e nti nduc e m e ntof uns e c ur e d l oa ns . E ve n a s s um i ng the n o tes c re ated en fo rc ea b le co n trac t rig h ts, th e d am ag es B an In ter s u ff er ed at R en ta’s ha nds w e r e nots o unc e r t a i n tha tthr e s hol d di s m i s s a l w a s w a rr a nt e d. A l though the o n g o i n g D o m i n i can ci v i l p ro ceed i n g s m ay resu l ti n p o ssi b l e reco v ery ag ai n st B a e z - F i gue r oa , w ho ha s s i gni f i c a ntpe r s ona l a s s e t s buti s a l s o i n j a i l a nd f a c i ng othe rc l a i m s f

r om the c ol l aps e of

B a nI nt e r , thi s m e r e pos s i bi l i ty doe s notr e nde rthe21

a m ountof

da m a ge s unc l e a r . T hi s i s nota c a s e l i ke M ot or ol a , 322 F . 3d a t136- 38, orF i r s tN a t i onw i de B a nk, 27 F . 3d a t768- 69, w he r e i tw a s vi r tua l l y c e r t a i n tha tthe a m ountof

a f r audul e nt l y i nduc e d de btw oul d be r e duc e d by f or e c l os ur e on c ol l a t e r a l . R e c ove ry on the not e s i s , a tbe s t , a r e m ot e a nd hi ghl y c ont i nge nt pos s i bi l i ty . T he s e R I C O c l a i m s w e r e r i pe e nough t o be tr i e d, unde ra ny s t a nda r d. B . E x tr a te r r ito r ia lity N e x t , Re n t a a r g u e s th a tth e RI CO c l a i ms s h o u l d b e d i s mi s s e d b e c a u s e RI CO c a n n o t r e a c h e x tr a te rr ito r ia l c o n d u c t, o ra t le a s t, c a n n o t r e a c h th e “e x tr a te rr ito r ia l” cond uctati ss ue here. A l tho ug h R ent a e xp l ai ns hi s a rgum enti n t erm s of “ choi ce of l a w , ” w e be l i e ve the i s s ue i s pr ope r l y c ons i de r e d thr ough the l e ns of extra t erri t ori al i ty, because “ [w ] here a f eder al st atut e i s i nv ol ved . . . a c ho i ce of l aw anal ys i s does notappl y i n the fi rs ti nst ance . T he i ni t i al qu es t i on , ra ther, i s w hether C ongr e s s i nt e nde d the s t a tut e i n que s t i on t o appl y t o c onduc toc c urr i ng out s i de the U ni t e d S t a t e s . T hi s i s a que s t i on of s t a tut ory i nt e rpr e t a t i on . . . nota que s t i on of c hoi c e of l a w . ” O r i on T i r e C orp v. G oody e a rT i r e & R ubbe r , 268 F . 3d 1133, 1137 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ; s e e a ls o U n ite d S ta te s v . P lu m m e r , 2 2 1 F .3 d 1 2 9 8 , 1 3 0 4 - 0 6 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 00 ) ( w hether ast atut e app l i es extra t erri t ori al l y i s am att erof st atut ory i nt erpret at i on ). Th e f i r s tq u e s t i o n , o n e o f

f i r s ti mp r e s s i o n i n th i s Ci r c u i t , i s w h e th e rRI CO22

appl i e s e xtr a t e rr i t or i a l l y a ta l l . C our t s ha ve di vi de d ove rthi s i s s ue . S om e ha ve co n cl u d ed th atR IC O d o es n o tap p l y ex trat erri t o ri al l y, essen t i al l y b ecau se C o n g r e s s m a d e n o e x p lic it s ta te m e n t to th a t e f f e c t. S e e , e .g ., J o s e v . M /V F ir G r ove , 801 F . S upp. 349 ( D . O r . 1991) . T he m or e w i de l y a c c e pt e d vi e w , a nd the o n e w e a d o p t to d a y , is th a t R I C O m a y ap p ly e x tr a te rr ito r ia lly if c o n d u c t m a te r ia l to the c om pl e t i on of

the r a c ke t e e r i ng oc c ur s i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s , ori f s i gni f i c a nt e f f e c ts o f th e r a c k e te e r in g a r e f

e lt h e r e . S e e , e .g ., N o r th - S o u th F in . C o rp . v . A lT ur ki , 100 F . 3d 1046, 1051 ( 2nd C i r . 1996) ; P oul os v. C a e s a r ’ s W or l d, I nc . , 379 F . 3d 65 4, 66 3-64 (9th C i r. 20 04 ) ( ci t at i on s om i tt ed). I ti s c l e a rtha tthe e f

f e c t s t e s ti s nots a t i s f

i e d he r e . N o U ni t e d S t a t e s pe r s on o rb u s in e s s h a r m e d b y th is s c h e m e h a s b e e n b r o u g h t to o u ra tte n tio n . T h e e f f e c ts w e r e f e l tpr e dom i na nt l y i n the D om i ni c a n R e publ i c , w he r e B a nI nt e rw a s ba s e d a nd w here the m aj ori ty of i t s deposi t ors a nd cr edi t ors w er e l ocat ed. E xtra t erri t ori al ju r is d ic tio n , if

it e x is ts , m u s t d e r iv e f

r o m th e c o n d u c t te s t. W e a ls o a g r e e w ith th e N o r th - S o u th c o u r t th a t u s e o f th e c o n d u c t te s t to a s s e r t e x tr a te rr ito r ia l R I C O ju r is d ic tio n m u s t b e u n d e r ta k e n w ith p a r tic u la rc a r e . T he c onduc tt e s ti s borr ow e d f r om the s e c ur i t i e s l a w s , butA m e r i c a n c our t s w i l l not exer ci se j uri sdi ct i on ov era tra nsnat i on al se curi t i es fr aud sui ti f the cond uct oc c urr i ng i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s i s pr e pa r a t oryorf a rr e m ove d f

r om the23

consum m at i on of the fr aud. S ee N orth-S ou th F i n. , 10 0 F . 3d at10 52 -53. L i kew i se , e xtr a t e rr i t or i a l R I C O j ur i s di c t i on m a y notbe appr opr i a t e w he n c onduc toc c urr i ng i n ordi r e c t e d a tthe U ni t e d S t a t e s i s notc e ntr a l t o c ons um m a t i on of the r a c ke t e e r i ng, f

ore xa m pl e , w he r e the s ol e ne xus i s ut i l i z a t i on of A m e r i c a n m a i l or w i res t o p rep are fo r o r co v er u p a frau d sch em e p erp etrat ed b y fo rei g n ers ag ai n st o th e rf o r e ig n e r s . I d . B uttha ti s notthi s c a s e . S i gni f i c a nta m ount s of

c onduc ti n f

ur the r a nc e of the R IC O conspi ra cyoccurre d i n b oth the U ni t ed S t at es as w el l as the D om i ni ca n R e p u b lic . I n d e e d , th e c o n d u c t o c c u rr in g in , o rd ir e c te d a t, th e U n ite d S ta te s in th is c a s e w a s nota n i ns ubs t a nt i a l orpr e pa r a t ory pa r tof the ove r a l l l oot i ng s c he m e , but the a c tua l m e a ns of

i t s c ons um m a t i on. T hi s s c he m e w a s c a rr i e d outby di r e c t i ng tra nsfe rs of fund s t o and fr om ac coun t s a tA m er i ca n b anks, i ncl ud i ng the A m er i ca n b a n k a c c o u n ts o f

th e v ic tim , B a n I n te r , a n d o f o n e R I C O e n te rp r is e , B a n k in v e s t. A m on g i t s pri m ary goal s w as enri chm entof an A m er i ca n ent i ty, W adevi l l e, co n tro l l ed b y an A m eri can d efen d an t . W e h av e n o d o u b tth atu n d er th ese ci rc um st ance s, C on gres s w ou l d i nt end B anInt ert o h ave r ec ou rs e t o A m er i ca n co u rt s an d rem ed i es. C . J udgm e nt as a M at te rof L aw R e n ta n e x t a r g u e s th a t h e is e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte ro f la w o n a ll24

c la im s . T h r e e R I C O c la im s w e r e r a is e d : o n e u n d e r§ 1 9 6 2 ( a ) , w h ic h p r o h ib its i nve s t i ng the pr oc e e ds of a pa tt e rn of

r a c ke t e e r i ng a c t i vi t i e s i n a n e nt e rpr i s e , a nd tw o R I C O c ons pi r a c i e s , one c ons pi r a c y t o vi ol a t e § 1962( a ) , a nd a l s o one conspi ra cyt o v i ol at e § 19 62 (c ), w hi ch proh i bi t s c on du ct i ng the af fa i rs of an en t erp ri se th ro u g h a p att ern o f rack et eeri n g act i v i ty. Ba n I n t e rw a s th e RI CO e nt e rpr i s e f

orthe § 1962( c ) c ons pi r a c y , a nd B a nki nve s tw a s the e nt e rpr i s e f orthe othe rtw o c l a i m s . T he a l l e ge d pr e di c a t e a c t s w e r e m a i l a nd w i r e f r a ud ( ba s e d on tr a ns m i s s i on of

the not e s ) a s w e l l a s m one yl a unde r i ng a nd i nt e r s t a t e tr a ns por t a t i on a nd r e c e i ptof

s t ol e n pr ope r ty ( ba s e d on the f unds tr a ns f

e r s ) . T he j ury f

ound f or th e C o m m is s io n o n a ll th r e e c o u n ts . R ent a a rgues thatthe C om m i ss i on di d n otprov e: (i ) the exi st ence of ei ther c o n s p ir a c y , ( ii) th e “in v e s tm e n t in ju ry ” p u ta tiv e ly r e q u ir e d b y § 1 9 6 2 ( a ) , ( iii) s c i e nt e ra s t o a l l thr e e R I C O c l a i m s a nd the f r a udul e nttr a ns f

e rc l a i m , or( i v) p ro x i m at e cau sat i o n as t o al l th ree R IC O cl ai m s. W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e C o m m is s io n a d e q u a te ly p r o v e d a c o n s p ir a c y to v io la te § 1 9 6 2 ( c ) , a n d th a t th e f u ll a m o u n t o f

d a m a g e s f

o u n d b yth e ju ry w a s p r o x im a te ly cau sed th ereb y. T o p ro v e a co n sp i racy t o v i o l at e § 1 9 6 2 (c), a p l ai n t i ff m u st dem on stra t e thata def

endant“ obj ec t i vel y m ani fe st ed, throu gh w ords or ac t i on s, an a gr e e m e ntt o pa r t i c i pa t e i n the c onduc tof the a f f a i r s of the e nt e rpr i s e ” thr ough a25

p a tte rn o f

r a c k e te e r in g a c tiv ity . U n ite d S ta te s v . S ta rr e tt, 5 5 F .3 d 1 5 2 5 , 1 5 4 3 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 95 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). A n agreement t o p art i ci pat e i n a R IC O conspi ra cy m a y be s how n e i the rby pr ovi ng “ a n a gr e e m e nton the ove r a l l obj e c t i ve of the c o n s p ir a c y ” o rb y s h o w in g th a t th e d e f e n d a n t a g r e e d to c o m m it tw o p r e d ic a te a c ts . U n ite d S ta te s v . B r o w n e , 5 0 5 F .3 d 1 2 2 9 , 1 2 6 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . T he e xi s t e nc e of

a n a gr e e m e nt , a s w e l l a s i t s obj e c t i ve , m a y be i nf e rr e d f r om c i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e de m ons tr a t i ng “ tha te a c h de f e nda ntm us tne c e s s a r i l y ha ve k n o w n th atth e o th ers w ere al so co n sp i ri n g t o p art i ci p at e i n th e sam e en t erp ri se thr ough a pa tt e rn of

r a c ke t e e r i ng a c t i vi ty . ” I d. ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . B utthi s doe s not re qu i re proo f that“ ea ch conspi ra t or agre ed w i th every other c on spi ra t or . . . [or] w a s a w a r e of

a l l the de t a i l s of

the c ons pi r a c y . ” S t a rr e tt , 55 F . 3d a t1544. I nde e d, p a r tic ip a tio n in a c o n s p ir a c y m a y b e in f e rr e d m e r e ly f

r o m a c ts w h ic h f

u r th e r e d its obj e c t . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. K opi tuk, 690 F . 2d 1289, 1323 ( 11th C i r . 1982) ( c i t a t i on o m itte d ) . H e r e th e r e is n o n e e d to in f e rth e e x is te n c e o f

a n a g r e e m e n t. R e n ta r e p r e s e n te d to T I B O M th a t h e c o n tr o lle d a n d o p e r a te d B a n k in v e s t, a n d th a t h e d id so pu rs uantt o an agreement w i th o ther s hare ho l ders . B ec ause the evi dence show ed B anki nv es texi st ed i n l ar ge m ea sure t o serve as a c on du i tfor B anInt er f unds he a de d f

orW a de vi l l e a nd othe re nt i t i e s c ontr ol l e d by the c ons pi r a t or s , theAlthough Renta’s conduc t may have violate d other pre dicate statutes, the most obvious 15 predic ate acts on this record areviolations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314-15, which prohibit transmission and re c e ipt of c onvert e d f

un ds , re sp e c tiv e ly . Se c tio n 2 31 4 p ro vide s th at “wh oever . . . trans mit s, or transf ers in interstateor foreign commerc e any . . . money, of the value of $5,000 or more, knowingthe same to have been stolen, conver ted, or taken by

fra ud” commits a fe lony . Section 2315 provides that “whoever rec eives . . . a

ny . . . money

of the value of $5,000 or more . . . which havecrosse d a State or United States boundary after beingstolen, unlawfully conver ted, or taken, kn ow ingthesameto h avebe en s tol en, unlawf ully c onvert e d, or

taken, ”c ommitsa f e l o ny. 26 j ury c oul d pr ope r l y i nf

e rtha tthe a gr e e m e nt ’ s s c ope e xt e nde d t o the c onduc tof B a n I n te r ’s a f

f a ir s a s w e ll. M oreover, there w as abun dantci rc um st ant i al evi dence fr om w hi ch the j ury coul d i nferthatthe obj ec tof the agree m entw as t o con du ctB anInt er ’ s a ff ai rs thr ough a pa tt e rn of

r a c ke t e e r i ng a c t i vi ty , t o w i t , a pa tt e rn of di ve r t i ng m one y f

r om B a nI nt e rthr ough tr a ns a c t i ons c ons t i tut i ng the tr a ns m i s s i on a nd r e c e i ptof c o n v e r te d f

u n d s . I n f

a c t, th e c o n s p ir a c y la r g e ly a c h ie v e d its g o a l. M illio n s in 15 B anInt erfund s t o w hi ch R ent a had no ri gh tw er e tra nsfe rr ed t o h i s c on trol . E ven tho ug h B anki nv es tw as perpetual l y overdra w n, R ent a’ s tra nsfe r r equest s w er e a l w a y s honor e d by B a nI nt e r , pr e c i s e l y be c a us e of the bus i ne s s r e l a t i ons hi ps a nd a g r e e m e n ts b e tw e e n R e n ta a n d B a n I n te rin s id e r s . T h e ju ry c o u ld c e r ta in ly concl ud e thatthe ac kn ow l edged agreement betw ee n R ent a a nd B ae z- F i gu er oa w as w h a t k e p t th e m o n e y f

lo w in g . I n d e e d , it w o u ld b e d if f ic u lt to c o n c lu d e o th e rw is e . I t is u n lik e ly ( to s a y th e le a s t) th a t B a n I n te rw o u ld p e r m it a n o r d in a ry d e p o s ito rto ra ck up m as si ve ov er draf tpo si t i on s a nd fa i l t o m ake a ny paym ent s on “ l oans” over27

a pe r i od of

s e ve r a l y e a r s , w i thouts uf f e r i ng a ny a tt e m pt s a tc ol l e c t i on ore ve n a tig h te n in g o f

c r e d it. B u t th is is p r e c is e ly w h a t B a n I n te rto le r a te d f r o m B a n k in v e s t, a nd i tdi d s o be c a us e of a n a gr e e m e ntbe tw e e n R e nt a a nd the tw o B a e z s abouthow t o o pera t e B anInt er . R e n ta e x p la in e d h is in d if f e r e n c e to B a n k I n v e s t’s o v e r d r a f ts b y h is re l at i on shi p w i th B ae z- F i gu er oa: he st at ed thathe tho ug htB ae z- F i gu er oa, as ow ner of B a nki nve s ta nd c ontr ol l i ng s ha r e hol de rof B a nI nt e r , w oul d t a ke c a r e of a ny ove r dr a f t s . R e nt a a r gue d tha tbe c a us e B a nki nve s tow e d hi m m one y a nd, l i ke B a nI nt e r , w a s c ontr ol l e d by B a e z - F i gue r oa , he w a s m e r e l y c onve r t i ng B a n k in v e s t’s liab ility to h im to a liab ility to B a n I n te r , a t B a e z - F ig e r o a ’s r e q u e s t. B u t f o rth a t a r g u m e n t to s u c c e e d , B a n k in v e s t w o u ld h a v e h a d to o w e R e n tam o n e y . T h e ju ry f

o u n d it d id n o t, a n d q u ite r e a s o n ab ly s o . F ur the r , c ontr a ry t o hi s pr ot e s t a t i ons , R e nt a w a s nota n unw i tt i ng pa r t i c i pa nt i n the l oot i ng of

B a nI nt e r . H e pr ot e s t s tha the l a c ke d the r e qui s i t e s c i e nt e rf orthe R I C O pr e di c a t e a c t s ; i ns t e a d, he a r gue s he a c t e d i n good f a i th, a s he di d notknow tha tB a nI nt e rw a s f

undi ng hi s tr a ns f

e rr e que s t s w i th ove r dr a f t s r a the rtha n, a s he e x p e c te d , p e r s o n a l f

u n d s o f B a e z - F ig u e r o a . T h e p r e d ic a te a c ts a lle g e d h e r e –m a il and w i re fr aud, tra nspo rt at i on of conv ert ed fund s, and m on eyl aund er i ng – eac h r e qui r e pr oof

of s c i e nt e r . R e publ i c of

P a na m a v. B C C I H ol di ngs ( L uxe m bour g)28

S A , 119 F . 3d 935, 948- 49 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . T r a ns por t a t i on a nd re ce i ptof conv ert ed fund s i n p art i cul arre qu i re s kno w l edge thatthe fund s w er e c onve r t e d ort a ke n by f

r a ud. I d. U nde rthe c i r c um s t a nc e s , R e nt a ’ s know l e dge ( or d e lib e r a te ig n o r a n c e ) in th is r e g a r d w a s a ju ry q u e s tio n . T h e ju ry c o u ld v e ry w e ll h av e d isb eliev ed R en ta’s testim o n y th at h e n ev erk n ew ab o u t B an k in v es t’ s n eg at i v e acco u n tb al an ces, n o to n l y b ecau se i tco u l d h av e m ad e an ad v erse c r e d ib ility d e te r m in a tio n , b u t a ls o b e c a u s e o f th e s ta te m e n t in th e B a n k in v e s t s a le d o c u m e n ts s ig n e d b y R e n ta th a t B a n k in v e s t d id , in f a c t, h a v e o v e r d r a f

t liab ilitie s to B anInt er . M oreover, R ent a’ s part i ci pat i on i n “ paperi ng the fi l e” w i th the no t es f ur the rc ontr i but e s t o a n i nf e r e nc e of s c i e nt e rw i th r e s pe c tt o hi s r e c e i ptof the fu n d s. In o th erw o rd s, R en ta k n ew th at B an k in v es t w as re ce iv in g B an In ter’s m one y i n the w i r e tr a ns f e r s r a the rtha n i t s ow n, a nd w he n a s ke d t o pa r t i c i pa t e i n a c o v e ru p b y s ig n in g s h a m p r o m is s o ry n o te s , h e o b lig e d . A n in f e r e n c e o f s c ie n te ris pe r f e c t l y pl a us i bl e on thi s r e c or d. In su m , th e reco rd su p p o rt s th e j u ry’ s co n cl u si o n th atR en t a w as a pa r t i c i pa nti n a c ons pi r a c yt o c onduc tthe a f f a i r s of B a nI nt e rthr ough a pa tt e rn of tr a ns a c t i ons w hi c h c ons t i tut e d tr a ns m i s s i on a nd r e c e i ptof c onve r t e d f

unds , tha tthe tra nsfe rs ati ss ue w er e c arri ed ou tpu rs uantt o thatagre em entand succee ded because of i t , and thatR ent a posse ss ed the re qu i si t e s ci ent er .Pur su ant to B onner v . City of Pritcha rd , 6 61 F .2 d 1 20 6 ( 11 th C ir . 1 98 1) (en b anc ), thi s 16 fo rm e r F if

th C ircuit de c isi on is b indingpre c e dent.

29 R ent a a l so as se rt s thathe w as ent i t l ed t o j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw base d on the equi t abl e def

ense of in p a r i de lic to . U nd erthi s def ense , “ a pl ai nt i ff

w ho has pa r t i c i pa t e d i n w r ongdoi ng m a y notr e c ove rda m a ge s r e s ul t i ng f r om the w r ongdoi ng. ” O f

f i c i a l C om m i tt e e of

U ns e c ur e d C r e di t or s of P S A , I nc . v. E dw ar ds, 43 7 F . 3d 11 45 , 11 52 (11th C i r. 20 06 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed) ( re cogn i zi ng that in p a r i de lic to is a d e f

e n s e to R I C O c la im s ) . R e n taa r g u e s th a t B a e z - F ig u e r o a , a c o - c o n s p ir a to r , w a s th e c o n tr o llin g s h a r e h o ld e ro f B a n I n te ra n d th a t h is p a r tic ip a tio n in th e w r o n g d o in g is ap p r o p r ia te ly im p u te d to th e b a n k , b a rr in g its reco v ery. W e a g r e e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u r t th a t im p u ta tio n o f w r o n g d o in g o rg u ilty k n o w le d g e to B a n I n te rs h o u ld n o t o c c u ra s a m a tte ro f la w h e r e . I m p u ta tio n is i napp ropri at e w here a j ury c ou l d p erm i ss i bl y c on cl ud e thatan agent(her e, B ae zF i gu er oa) w as engaged i n fraud or se l f- deal i ng advers e t o a corporat e pri nci pal ( he r e , B a nI nt e r ) . S e e F D I C v. L ott , 460 F . 2d 82, 88 ( 5th C i r . 1972) ( ba nk 16 o f f ic e r/d ir e c to r ’s k n o w le d g e n o t im p u te d to b a n k w h e r e h e f r a u d u le n tly d e a lt w ith ba nk i n hi s ow n i nt e r e s t ) ; s e e a l s o R e s t a t e m e nt( T hi r d) of A ge nc y § 5. 04; B a nk of C hi na v. N B M L L C , 35 9 F . 3d 17 1, 17 9 (2n d C i r. 20 04 ). R e n ta a r g u e s th a t in p a r i de lic to ne c e s s a r i l y appl i e s be c a us e B a e z - F i gue r oa30

w as the control l i ng shar ehol der of B anInt er . T hi s a rgum entconfuses the i n p a ri de lic to defe nse i t se l f w i th the agency l aw pri nci pl es thatperm i ti tt o b e a ss ert ed a g a in s t a c o rp o r a te p la in tif f . A s R e n taa r g u e s , w e h a v e r e c o g n iz e d th a t i n p a ri de lic to do ctri ne bars re covery by a c orpo ra t i on w ho se sol e s hare ho l der i s e ng aged i n w r ongdoi ng, E dw a r ds , 437 F . 3d a t1149, a nd R e nt a c i t e s othe rc a s e s pe r m i tt i ng the defense t o b e a ss ert ed agai nsta c orpo ra t i on w ho se control l i ng shar ehol der engaged i n the w rong do i ng w hi ch form s the basi s of the pl ai nt i ff’ s c l ai m s. S ee , e. g . , N i ssel so n v . L ern o u t , 4 6 9 F . 3 d 1 4 3 , 1 5 7 (1 stC i r. 2 0 0 6 ). T h e d efen se i s, ho w ever , no tavai l abl e b eca u se of the w rong do er ’ s ow ners hi p o f apl ai nt i ff c orpor a t i on, butbe c a us e of hi s a ge nc y r e l a t i ons hi p w i th i t . I nde e d, w r ongdoi ng by a m e r e e m pl oy e e m i ghtbe a s uf f i c i e ntba s i s f

orthe de f

e ns e i n s om e c a s e s . T he p o in t is th a t c o rp o r a tio n s a c t o n ly th r o u g h th e ira g e n ts , a n d a n a g e n t’s g u ilty co n d u ct an d k n o w led g e is typ ically im p u ted to h is p rin cip al. O n ce th e a g en t’ s k n o w le d g e a n d c o n d u c t a r e im p u te d to th e c o rp o r a tio n , th e c o rp o r a tio n is co n si d ered a w ro n g d o er; o n l y th en d o es in p a r i de lic to b e c o m e a d e f e n s e a g a in s t it. T he qu es t i on here i s notw hether in p a r i de lic to w o u ld b a rr e c o v e ry b y B a n I n te rif i ti s a w ro n g d o er –E d w ard s i s cl ear th ati tw o u l d –b u tw h eth er B an In t er i s a w rong do eratal l , thati s, w hether the w rong do i ng of i t s a gent s s ho ul d b e i m pu t ed to it. T h e a d v e r s e in te r e s t e x c e p tio n a d d r e s s e s th is q u e s tio n , a n d it ty p ic a lly31

pr e s e nt s a j ury que s t i on. S e e B a nk of C hi na , 359 F . 3d a t179. T he di stri ctcourthel d, and o ur re vi ew of the re cord confi rm s, thatthere w as suff i ci entevi dence fr om w hi ch the j ury c ou l d con cl ud e thatB ae z- F i gu er oa ac t ed ad v ersel y t o B an In t er’ s i n t erest s, i n d eed , l o o t ed i tal o n g si d e R en t a. T h u s, i m pu t at i on of B ae z- F i gu er oa’ s w rong do i ng t o the bank w ou l d b e i napp ropri at e, and R ent a’ s def

ense fa i l s. Itw ou l d b e pervers e i nd ee d i f the C om m i ss i on w as u n ab l e t o p u rsu e a cl ai m o n b eh al f o f B an In t er’ s o th er st ak eh o l d ers so l el y b ecau se s om e of the pe opl e w ho s t ol e f

r om i tw e r e i ns i de r s i n a pos i t i on t o c a rry outthe f r a ud! B e c a u s e th e § 1 9 6 2 ( c ) c o n s p ir a c y p r o v id e s a s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n tia ry b a s is to affi rm th e j u d g m en ti n fu l l , an d b ecau se R en t a’ s in p a r i de lic to d e f e n s e f a i l s , we need no tre ac h R ent a’ s other a rgum ent s abo utthe suff i ci ency of the evi dence. D . P ar t i c ular i

z e d P l e adi ng R e nt a ne xta r gue s the c a s e s houl d be di s m i s s e d, orthe j udgm e ntr e m i tt e d, for f ai l ure t o p l ea d the predi ca t e a ct s of f raud w i th p art i cul ar i ty, as the verdi ctw as b a s e d o n n u m e r o u s f

r a u d u le n t p r o m is s o ry n o te s n o t p le a d e d in th e c o m p la in t. W h en a R IC O cl ai m i s b ased o n p red i cat e act s i n v o l v i n g frau d , th o se pr e di c a t e a c t s m us tbe pl e a de d w i th pa r t i c ul a r i ty , i n a c c or da nc e w i th F e d. R . C i v. P . 9( b) . S e e , e . g. , A m br os i a C oa l & C ons t . C o. v. P a ge s M or a l e s , 482 F . 3d 1309,32

1316- 17 ( 11th C i r . 2007) ; s e e a l s o 5 W r i ght& M i l l e r , F e de r a l P r a c t i c e a nd P r oc e dur e § 1251. 1. W e now hol d tha tR I C O pr e di c a t e a c t s nots oundi ng i n f r a ud n e e d n o tn e c e s s a r i l y b e p l e a d e d w i th th e p a r t i c u l a r i ty r e q u i r e d b y Fe d . R. Ci v . P. 9( b) . W he n f

r a ud i s pl e a de d a s a n a l t e r a t i ve c l a i m , the non- f r a ud c l a i m s i n the c om pl a i ntne e d notbe pl e a de d w i th pa r t i c ul a r i ty unl e s s the s a m e m i s r e pr e s e nt a t i on f or m s the ba s i s of

both the f

r a ud a nd non- f

r a ud c l a i m . W a gne rv. F i r s tH or i z on P ha r m a c e ut i c a l C orp. , 464 F . 3d 1273, 1277- 78 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( r e qui r i ng p a r t i c u l a r i z e d p l e a d i n g w h e n th e s a me mi s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s u p p o r t s f r a u d c l a i ms unde rR ul e 10b- 5 a nd non- f r a ud c l a i m s unde r§ 11 of the S e c ur i t i e s E xc ha nge A ct ). T h e ru l e sh o u l d b e th e sam e w h en th e al t ern at i v e th eo ry o f th e case i s a p r e d i c a t e a c tr a th e rth a n a n i n d e p e n d e n tc l a i m. A ppl i e d he r e , the s e pr i nc i pl e s s ugge s ttha tthe tr a ns a c t i ons unde r l y i ng the v e r d i c tn e e d n o th a v e b e e n p l e a d e d w i th p a r t i c u l a r i ty b e c a u s e th e n o n - f r a u d RI CO predi ca t e s t atut es do no tre qu i re proo f of am i sr epre se nt at i on . T he verdi ctw as ba s e d on $48. 5 m i l l i on i n w i r e tr a ns f e r s t o B a nki nve s t , I nt e r duty , a nd G r oupw i de F l ori da, and the $1 0. 5 m i l l i on i n currencyexchange tra nsfe rs t o W adevi l l e. T here w as a s uffi ci entevi dent i ary bas i s t o con cl ud e thatthese tra nsfe rs by them se l ves vi ol at ed 18 U . S . C . § 2 31 4-15 , re gardl es s of w hether the re l at ed prom i ss ory not es ortr a ns f e rr e que s t s w oul d a l s o s uppor ta w i r e f r a ud c l a i m . B e c a us e pr ovi ng aWhen a violation of § 2314 is based on tra nsmissi on of funds, the statute only require s 17 proof that the de fenda

nt transmitted more than $5,000 in interstateor foreign commerc e, and that the def endant knew the money

was stolen, converted, or obtained by fra ud. Cf. United States v. Her ring , 602 F.2d 1220, 1224 ( 5th Cir. 1979); Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 9 (1954). L ikewise, proof

under therec eipt of stolen property statute requires that a de fenda nt rec eive $5,000 or more which crossed a stateor United States boundar y after havingbeen stolen or conver ted, and that the de fenda

nt know the funds were stolen or conver ted. 18 U.S.C. § 2315. Neither statute requires proof

of a misrepresentation.

33 vi ol at i on of the st ol en prop erty s t atut es do es no tre qu i re proo f of a m i sr epre se nt at i on , and b ec ause the evi dence w as suff i ci entt o sust ai n the verdi ct 17 ba s e d on the s e non- f

r a ud pr e di c a t e a c t s , no e rr orha s be e n s how n. E . For um N

on C onv e ni e ns R e nt a ne xta r gue s the e nt i r e c a s e s houl d ha ve be e n di s m i s s e d f orf orum non c o n v e n ie n s . T h a t d o c tr in e a u th o r iz e s a c o u r t w ith v e n u e to d e c lin e to e x e r c is e its j ur i s di c t i on w he n the pa r t i e s ’ a nd c our t ’ s ow n c onve ni e nc e , a s w e l l a s the r e l e va nt p u b lic a n d p r iv a te in te r e s ts , in d ic a te th a t th e a c tio n s h o u ld b e tr ie d e ls e w h e r e . F o r d , 3 1 9 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 7 . D o m e s tic p la in tif f s e n jo y a s tr o n g p r e s u m p tio n th a t th e ir ch o sen fo ru m i s co n v en i en t ; fo rei g n p l ai n t i ffs, su ch as th e C o m m i ssi o n , en j o y a w ea ker pres um pt i on . L eon v . M i l l i on A i r, Inc. , 25 1 F . 3d 13 05 , 13 11 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). A defe nd antse eki ng di sm i ss al for f orum no n con veni ens bea rs the bu rden of dem on stra t i ng (i ) thatan adequat e a l t ernat i ve forum i s a vai l abl e, (i i ) that r e l e va ntpubl i c a nd pr i va t e i nt e r e s t s w e i gh i n f a vorof di s m i s s a l , a nd ( i i i ) tha tthe pl ai nt i ff ca n rei nst at e hi s s ui ti n the al t ernat i ve forum w i tho utun du e i ncon veni ence34

or prej ud i ce . M em breno v . C ost a C roci er e S P A , 42 5 F . 3d 93 2, 93 7 (11 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) . P e r tin e n t p r iv a te in te r e s ts o f th e litig a n ts in c lu d e r e la tiv e e a s e o f a c c e s s to ev i d en ce i n th e co m p et i n g fo ra, av ai l ab i l i ty o f w i tn esses an d co m p u l so ry p ro cess o v e rth e m , th e c o s t o f

o b ta in in g e v id e n c e , a n d th e e n f o r c e ab ility o f

a ju d g m e n t. F o r d , 3 1 9 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 7 ( c itin g G u lf O il v . G ilb e r t, 3 3 0 U .S . 5 0 1 , 5 0 8 - 0 9 ( 1 9 4 7 ) ) . R e l e va nt publ i c i nt e r e s t s i nc l ude the f a m i l i a r i ty of

the c our t ( s ) w i th the gove rni ng l a w, th e i n t e r e s to f

a n y f o r e i g n n a t i o n i n h a v i n g th e d i s p u t e l i t i g a t e d i n i t s o wn c our t s , a nd the va l ue of

ha vi ng l oc a l c ontr ove r s i e s l i t i ga t e d l oc a l l y . I d. F i na l l y , the C om m i s s i on ur ge s us t o a doptthe rul e of s om e c our t s r e qui r i ng a de f e nda ntt o s how “ gr e a tpr e j udi c e ” t o s uc c e e d on a pos t - tr i a l f orum non c onve ni e ns m ot i on, e ve n i f i ti s m e r e l y a r e ne w a l of a de ni e d pr e - tr i a l m ot i on w here “ grea tprej ud i ce ” nee d n otbe show n. S ee Z el i nski v. C ol um bi a 300 Inc. , 3 3 5 F .3 d 6 3 3 , 6 4 3 ( 7 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ; M c L e n n a n v . A m e r ic a n E u r o c o p te rC o rp . I n c ., 24 5 F . 3d 40 3, 42 3 (5th C i r. 20 01 ) ( ci t i ng In R e A i r C ra sh D i sa st erN ea r N ew O rl ea ns, 82 1 F . 2d 11 47 , 11 68 n. 35 (5th C i r. 19 87 ) ( en banc), vaca t ed on other gr ounds s ub nom . P a n A m e r i c a n W or l d A i rw a y s I nc . v. L ope z , 490 U . S . 1032 (198 9), op i ni on re i nst at ed on re m and, 88 3 F . 2d 17 (5th C i r. 19 89 )) . B utw e nee d notde c i de w he the rt o a dopta “ gr e a tpr e j udi c e ” r e qui r e m e ntf

orpos t - tr i a l m ot i ons because R ent a has no tm ade the other s ho w i ng s nec es sa ryfor r el i ef .35

O urr e vi e w of

the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de r s a ddr e s s i ng f orum non c onve ni e ns r e ve a l s no abus e of

di s c r e t i on. A l though a D om i ni c a n f orum w a s a va i l abl e a nd a de qua t e , R e nt a ha s nots how n e rr ori n the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c onc l us i on tha tthe publ i c a nd pr i va t e f

a c t or s w e r e i n e qui poi s e a nd, thus tha tthe pr e s um pt i on i n f a vor o f th e p la in tif

f’s c h o s e n f

o ru m s h o u ld g o v e rn . F ir s t, w e c a n n o t s a y th e d is tr ic t e rr e d in f in d in g th e p u b lic f

a c to r s in equi po i se . A l tho ug h the ef fe ct s of the fr aud w er e f el tm ost l y i n the D om i ni ca n R e publ i c , A m e r i c a n l a w pr ope r l y gove rns B a nI nt e r ’ s c l a i m s , m i l i t a t i ng i n f a vorof a n A me r i c a n f

o ru m. A s f orpr i va t e f

a c t or s , w e a ga i n a gr e e w i th the di s tr i c tc our t . S i gni f i c a nt a m ount s of

e vi de nc e w e r e l oc a t e d i n e a c h c ountry . I n pa r t i c ul a r , be c a us e the tr a n s a c t i o n s c o n s u mma t i n g th e l o o t i n g w e r e mo s t l y c a rr i e d o u tb e tw e e n U . S. bank s, i ncl ud i ng B anInt er ’ s dol l ar -denom i nat ed ac coun t s a tU . S . bank s, the “ paper tra i l ” e vi dence w as predom i nant l y l ocat ed i n the U ni t ed S t at es , as w er e s ever al nece ss ary w i tness es fr om tho se bank s. R ent a non ethel es s a rgues thatthere w as an un fa i r e vi dent i ary i m bal ance , as the di stri ctcourtl ac ked sub po ena pow erov erkey doc um e nt s a nd w i tne s s e s , i nc l udi ng B a e z - F i gue r oa a nd B a e z - C oc c o. T he u n av ai l ab i l i ty o f th i s ev i d en ce w as al l th e m o re u n fai r t o R en t a, h e arg u es, b ecau se th e C o m m is s io n h a d a c c e s s to it. T h e C o m m is s io n r e p lie s , in e s s e n c e , th a t R e n ta36

te s tif ie d to th e s a m e f

a c ts w h ic h h e s e e k s to p r o v e b y th e w itn e s s e s a n d d o c u m e n ts a lle g e d ly in th e D o m in ic a n R e p u b lic ; th u s , e v e n a s s u m in g th e e v id e n c e is a s R e n ta de s c r i be s , i tw oul d be c um ul a t i ve . F or tuna t e l y , w e ne e d nots pe c ul a t e aboutthe m i s s i ng e vi de nc e , be c a us e the m os ts i gni f i c a ntdoc um e nt a ry e vi de nc e f r om the D om i ni ca n R epub l i c – B anki nv es t ’ s l edger and the re po rt s of a n aud i tof B anInt er

–ar e p ar t o f th e r ec o rd o n ap p ea l. A s e x p lain ed b elo w in o u r a n alys is o f R en ta’s m ot i on for post -j ud gm entre l i ef , thi s w as no tthe type of s m ok i ng gu n evi dence th a t w o u ld r e q u ir e r e tr ia l. W e c a n n o t s a y th a t its ab s e n c e a t tr ia l s o d r a m a tic a lly t i ppe d the ba l a nc e of

i nt e r e s t s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n not di s m i s s i ng the c a s e . L i ke w i s e , a l though B a e z - F i gue r oa a nd B a e z - C oc c o m a y ha ve be e n a va i l abl e i n a D om i ni c a n f orum , w e doubttha tthe i ra va i l abi l i ty s o outw e i ghs the pr oba t i ve va l ue of

the e vi de nc e a va i l abl e onl y i n a n A m e r i c a n f orum tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n m a i nt a i ni ng j ur i s di c t i on. F. P ost-J ud gm ent R el i ef R e nt a f i na l l y a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng hi m po st -j ud gm entre l i ef un der F ed. R . C i v. P . 60 (b)( 2) base d o n n ew l y di sc ov er ed e v i d e n c e , n a me l y , th e Ba n I n t e ra u d i tr e p o r ta n d th e l e d g e ro f Ba n k i n v e s t . To o b ta in r e lie f

u n d e rR u le 6 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) , a p a r tym u s t s h o w th a t e v id e n c e w a s ( i) di s c ove r e d a f

t e rtr i a l , ( i i ) m a t e r i a l , ( i i i ) notm e r e l y i m pe a c hi ng orc um ul a t i ve , ( i v)37

l i kel y t o p rodu ce a di ff

er entre sul ton re tri al , and further thatthe party e xerc i se d due di l i ge nc e t o obt a i n the e vi de nc e . W a dde l l v. H e ndry C o. S he r i f f’ s O f f i c e , 329 F .3 d 1 3 0 0 , 1 3 0 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . T hi s e vi dence w as al l egedl y unavai l abl e a ttri al because the audi tre po rtw as no tye tcom pl et ed and the l edger w as i n the hand s of R ent a’ s a cc ou nt ant , w ho w as no tautho ri ze d t o rel ea se i tfor r ea sons re l at ed t o the then-on go i ng D om i ni ca n pr oc e e di ngs . Y e tthe l e dge ra nd a udi ta r e notl i ke l y t o pr oduc e a di f f e r e ntr e s ul ton r e tr i a l , f ore s s e nt i a l l y the r e a s ons pr opounde d by the di s tr i c tc our t . T he a udi ti s of qu es t i on abl e r el evance and i s l ar gel y c um ul at i ve of R ent a’ s ow n t es t i m on y. It c e r ta in ly d o e s n o t d e c is iv e ly e s tab lis h th e c r itic a l p o in t th a t R e n taw o u ld n e e d to e s tab lis h to o b ta in r e lie f: th a t h e w a s o w e d m illio n s b y B a n k in v e s t. T h e le d g e ris a c lo s e rq u e s tio n . L ik e th e B a n k in v e s t s a le d o c u m e n ts , it coul d b e c on strued as consi st entw i th R ent a’ s theory of the ca se . (R ent a t es t i fi ed to m an y o f th e f

ac ts h e w o u ldse ek to p ro v e w ith th e led g er , b u t b ec au se R en ta’s the ory of the c a s e i s a n i m pl a us i bl e or a l a gr e e m e ntf orw hi c h he ha d no doc um e nt a ry pr oof

, s tr ong doc um e nt a rys uppor tf orhi s a s s e r t i ons m i ghtha ve c ha nge d the r e s ul t . ) T he l e dge ra r guabl y e s t abl i s he s m or e de t a i l about B a nki nve s t ’ s l i abi l i t i e s tha n R e nt a hi m s e l f c oul d pr ovi de . B uti tdoe s not c o n c l u s i v e l y e s t ab l i s h th a tB a n k i n v e s to we d R e n t a th e m i l l i o n s h e c l a i m e d . As38

w ith th e c as e o f th e B an k in v es t sale d o cu m en ts, fo r th e led g erto su p p o rt R en ta’s the ory of the c a s e , the j ury w oul d ha ve ha d t o a c c e pthi s c ha r a c t e r i z a t i on of pa r t i c ul a ra m bi guous l i ne i t e m s . M or e ove r , the r e a r e s i gni f i c a ntque s t i ons about the authent i ci ty of the l edger. In short , w i th o r w i tho utthe l edger, thi s c as e hi ng ed on R e nt a ’ s c r e di bi l i ty . G i ve n the othe re vi de nc e i n the c a s e , the l e dge rw a s not lik e ly to h a v e a lte r e d th e ju ry ’s a s s e s s m e n t o f R e n ta ’s c r e d ib ility , n o rd o e s it othe rw i s e s ugge s ttha tthe r e s ul tof a ne w tr i a l w oul d l i ke l y be di f f e r e nt . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng po st -j ud gm entre l i ef . G . C onc lus i on R ent a r ai se s a ss ort ed other a rgum ent s, w hi ch do no tm er i tre l i ef or further a n a ly s is . F o rth e f

o r e g o in g r e a s o n s , th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is AF F I RME D.