Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 587.0

529US2

Unit: $U51

[09-26-01 10:31:04] PAGES PGT: OPIN

512

BECK v. PRUPIS

Stevens, J., dissenting

only qualifying “tortious act” must be “an act that is inde-
pendently wrongful under RICO.” Ante, at 505–506 (em-
phasis added).

And if one assumes further that the Court is correct to
say that the only qualifying “ ‘ac[t] of a tortious character’ ”
is “an act that is independently wrongful under RICO,” the
analogy does not actually support what the Court has held.
The majority holds that § 1964(c) liability could be imposed
if the overt acts injuring the plaintiff are among those rack-
eteering activities listed in § 1961(1)—such as murder, brib-
ery, arson, and extortion. Racketeering activities, however,
are not “independently wrongful under RICO.” They are,
of course, independently wrongful under other provisions of
state and federal criminal law, but RICO does not make rack-
eteering activity itself wrongful under the Act. The only
acts that are “independently wrongful under RICO” are vio-
lations of the provisions of § 1962. Thus, even accepting the
Court’s own analogy, if petitioner were harmed by predicate
acts deﬁned in § 1961(1), that still would not, by itself, give
rise to a cause of action under § 1964(c). Only if those rack-
eteering activities also constituted a violation of § 1962(a),
(b), or (c) would petitioner be harmed by “an act that is inde-
pendently wrongful under RICO.” And, of course, if peti-
tioner were already harmed by conduct covered by one of
those provisions, he would hardly need to use § 1962(d)’s con-
spiracy provision to establish a cause of action.

*

*

*

The plain language of RICO makes it clear that petition-
er’s civil cause of action under § 1964(c) for a violation of
§ 1962(d) does not require that he be injured in his business
or property by any particular kind of overt act in further-
ance of the conspiracy. The Court’s recitation of the com-
mon law of civil conspiracy does not prove otherwise, and,
indeed, contradicts its own holding.

For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.