Source: http://supreme.nolo.com/us/473/606/case.html
Timestamp: 2020-01-26 20:24:33
Document Index: 22559171

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1961', '§ 1962', 'art.\n1', '§ 1962', '§ 1961', '§ 1962', 'art, 747', '§ 1964', '§ 1962']

AMER. NAT'L BANK V. HAROCO, INC., 473 U. S. 606 - Volume 473 - 1985 - Full Text - US Supreme Court Center - USSC Cases - Nolo
US Supreme Court Center > Volume 473 > AMER. NAT'L BANK V. HAROCO, INC., 473 U. S. 606 (1985) > Full Text
AMER. NAT'L BANK V. HAROCO, INC., 473 U. S. 606 (1985)
Amer. Nat'l Bank v. Haroco, Inc., 473 U.S. 606 (1985)
American National Bank & Trust Company of Chicago v. Haroco, Inc.
No. 84-822
In respondents' private civil action brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, they alleged that petitioner bank and several of its officers had fraudulently charged excessive interest rates on loans to respondents, and that the scheme to defraud, which was carried on through the mails, violated § 1962(c), in that the mailings constituted a pattern of racketeering activity by means of which petitioners conducted, or participated in the conduct of, the bank. The only injuries alleged were the excessive interest charges themselves. The District Court dismissed on the ground that the complaint did not state a claim, but the Court of Appeals reversed in relevant part.
1. In their brief and at oral argument, petitioners raised the issue -- not raised or addressed below and not included in the question presented by their petition for certiorari -- that respondents' complaint did not adequately allege a violation of § 1962(c) because they had not shown that the enterprise was "conducted" through a pattern of racketeering activity. The issue will not be considered, in view of this Court's Rule 21.1(a) that only the question set forth in the petition for certiorari or fairly included therein will be considered.
2. There is no merit to petitioners' argument that respondents' injury must flow not from the predicate offenses, prescribed in the statute, but from the fact that they were performed as part of the conduct of an enterprise. That argument is a variation on the "racketeering injury" concept rejected in Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co., ante p. 473 U. S. 479.
747 F.2d 384, affirmed.
Page 473 U. S. 607
This is a private civil action brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), Pub.L. 91-452, Title IX, 84 Stat. 941, as amended, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968. Respondents' complaint alleged that petitioner bank and several of its officers had fraudulently charged excessive interest rates on loans. The gist of the claim was that the bank had lied with regard to its prime rate, and that the rate charged to respondents, which was pegged to the prime, was therefore too high. The complaint alleged that this scheme to defraud, which was carried on through the mails, violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(C), in that the mailings constituted a pattern of racketeering activity by means of which petitioners conducted, or participated in the conduct
Page 473 U. S. 608
of, the bank. The only injuries alleged were the excessive interest charges themselves.
The District Court dismissed on the ground that the complaint did not state a claim. 577 F.Supp. 111 (ND Ill.1983). In its view,
"to be cognizable under RICO, [the injury] must be caused by a RICO violation, and not simply by the commission of predicate offenses, such as acts of mail fraud."
Id. at 114. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed in relevant part, 747 F.2d 384 (1984), rejecting various formulations of a requirement of a distinct RICO injury. We granted certiorari, 469 U.S. 1157 (1984), to consider the question whether a claim under § 1964(c) requires that the plaintiff have suffered damages by reason of the defendant's violation of § 1962 through the prescribed predicate offenses, or whether injury from those offenses alone is sufficient. *
Page 473 U. S. 609
To the extent petitioners' argument is a variation on the racketeering injury concept at issue in Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co., ante p. 473 U. S. 479, it is inconsistent with that decision. The submission that the injury must flow not from the predicate acts themselves, but from the fact that they were performed as part of the conduct of an enterprise suffers from the same defects as the amorphous and unfounded restrictions on the RICO private action we rejected in that case.
[For dissenting opinion of JUSTICE MARSHALL, see ante p. 473 U. S. 500.]
* The question presented was:
"Whether a civil claim for treble damages under the Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations Act ('RICO') requires that the plaintiff suffer damages by reason of the defendant's acquiring, maintaining control or an interest in, or conducting the affairs of an 'enterprise' through the commission of statutorily prescribed offenses, as opposed to being damaged solely by reason of the defendant's commission of such offenses."
Pet. for Cert. i.
Powered by Justia US Supreme Court Center: AMER. NAT'L BANK V. HAROCO, INC., 473 U. S. 606 (1985)