Source: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/New_York_Southern_District_Court/1--11-cv-02794/Tymoshenko_et_al_v._Firtash_et_al/118/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 11:01:29+00:00

Document:
`“U.S. Enterprise”) conducted primarily by defendant United States citizens and corporations.
`but with leave for Plaintiffs to amend.
`U.S. corporations and citizens. Id. ¶ 105.
`relief could be granted. See [Dkt. Nos. 45, 50, 57].
`declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Id. at *13.
`The Court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend. Id. at *14.
`“Group DF”; and several U.S. corporations and citizens. With the exception of two U.S.
`to dismiss. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
`government officials.” Id. ¶ 3.
`meters of natural gas that Gazprom had delivered to RUE, but for which RUE had not yet paid.
`After Naftogaz took control of RUE’s natural gas, RUE and Firtash sought legal redress.
`transfer 11 billion cubic meters of natural gas, plus interest, to Firtash’s company. Id. ¶ 118.
`The gas was valued at $3.5 billion at the time. Id.
`Racketeering Enterprise.” Id. ¶¶ 19, 22. The U.S. Enterprise consisted largely of U.S.
`identifies 39 corporate entities that participated in the U.S. Enterprise. Id. ¶ 61.
`sought to purchase and rebuild the “Drake Hotel project site” in New York. Id. ¶¶ 82–86.
`$25 million. Id. ¶ 87.
`Dynamic and Calister’s “South Cat Cay Island” project in Miami, and CMZ and Dynamic’s “St.
`through which Nadra Bank transferred money.
`the company. See id. ¶ 73. Again, however, the SAC does not identify any associated money transfer.
`Eleuthera Development, Inc. Id. ¶ 98.
`U.S. Enterprise’s acts of money laundering, or both.
`mail fraud statute; and 18 U.S.C. § 1956, the money laundering statute. See id. ¶¶ 124–125.
`benefits, as well as career opportunities,” and misrepresented “that the defendant companies . . .
`Firtash’s properties in the United States at “fraudulently inflated” prices. See id. ¶¶ 93–95.
`email and mail, id. ¶ 89 & Ex. 24.
`3 The SAC indicates that this email is Exhibit 23, but Plaintiffs failed to file that exhibit electronically.
`employee benefits. See id. ¶¶ 76, 131–133.
`becoming a “major ‘investor’” in CMZ); id. ¶ 23 (alleging that Firtash “utilize[d] various U.S.
`siphon off and ‘launder’ funds . . . for defendants’ benefit”).
`“finance” additional “money laundering . . . from [its] New York base.” SAC ¶ 20; see also id.
`comprised part of the Racketeering Enterprise.” SAC ¶ 22. Second, “a portion of the [U.S.
`motivated prosecutions, it never mentions what role, if any, money transferred from the U.S.
`Enterprise played in those prosecutions. See id. ¶¶ 45–53.
`the statute to extraterritorial conduct.4 See Mem. of Law in Supp. (Manafort et al.) [Dkt. No.
`Court now resolves Manafort’s motion without reaching that jurisdictional argument.
`reaching the issue of extraterritoriality.
`interest in or control of any [such] enterprise” “through a pattern of racketeering activity.” Id.
`any conspiracy to commit the preceding violations. Id. § 1962(d).
`Clearing House, Inc., 897 F.2d 21, 25 (2d Cir. 1990).
`Hemi Grp., LLC v. City of New York, 559 U.S. 1, 9 (2010)).
`relationship between the purported enterprise’s alleged criminal acts and the plaintiff’s injuries”).
`intended victims of the racketeering enterprise.” Lerner, 318 F.3d at 124; see also Abrahams v.
`beneficiary of the laws prohibiting it”).
` The SAC alleges that the defendants violated all four subsections of 18 U.S.C. § 1962.
`Tymoshenko also fail to state a civil RICO claim.
`allegations in a complaint filed in state court by Inovalis SA against CMZ and Dynamic, among others. See Mem.
`request that the Court draw factual inferences in the instant case based on Inovalis’s allegations in state court.
`Plaintiffs also contend that Inovalis “may be considered . . . one of the plaintiff ‘John Does #1-50.’” Id. at 12 n.11.
`Inc., No. 06 Civ. 6278, 2006 WL 3771013, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2006) (Stein, J.).
`Mills v. Polar Molecular Corp., 12 F.3d 1170, 1176 (2d Cir. 1993).
`market foreign properties at inflated prices, see id. ¶¶ 93–95.
`To establish a violation of the money laundering statute cited in the SAC, 18 U.S.C.

References: v. 
 § 1956
 § 1962
 v. 
 v.

 § 1962
 v.