Source: https://www.bestdefender.com/rico-crimes/
Timestamp: 2019-11-17 10:41:25
Document Index: 546159517

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1961', '§ 1961', '§ 1962', '§ 1961', '§ 1961', '§ 1961', '§ 1961', '§ 1961']

Rico Crimes - Fay Arfa-Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer
RICO stands for “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations.” It is a law that is “designed to attack organized criminal activity and preserve marketplace integrity by investigating, controlling, and prosecuting persons who participate or conspire to participate in racketeering.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1286 (8th ed. 2005). The RICO Act was enacted in 1970, and applies only to activity involving interstate or foreign commerce. Id. “Racketeering” is defined in a couple of ways. In one way it is “a system of organized crime traditionally involving the extortion of money from businesses by intimidation, violence, or other illegal methods.” Id. In a second sense, it is a “pattern of illegal activity (such as bribery, extortion, fraud, and murder) carried out as part of an enterprise (such as a crime syndicate) that is owned or controlled by those engaged in the illegal activity.” Id. at 1287; see also 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) (2007).
This second sense is derived from the RICO statutes, found at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq., and it has greatly broadened the term’s original understanding to include such violations as mail fraud, securities fraud, and the collection of illegal gambling debts.” Id. Because the RICO statutes are drawn so broadly, they have been applied in ways that Congress may not have intended. See Joseph Berger, Prosecutors to Present Clinic Doctor’s Slaying to Grand Jury, N.Y. TIMES (Apr. 20, 1999) at B5 (United States Attorney discussed that potential charges that could be brought in the case of an attack on an abortion clinic doctor could include RICO if the suspect’s act was tied to an organization); Clinic bomb victim speaks against bill to curb RICO, FORT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM Jul 18, 1998 at 7 (Representative from Florida stated, in response to a successful civil lawsuit against anti-abortion protestors, “It was never the intention that the law be used against advocacy groups.”). Furthermore, the RICO statutes “provide for enforcement not only by criminal prosecution also by civil lawsuit, in which the plaintiff can sue for treble damages,” Id. at 1286, so there is great incentive to link as much activity to the RICO statutes as possible.
conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt. Id. § 1962(c)
“enterprise” includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4).
“pattern of racketeering activity” requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5).
“unlawful debt” means a debt
“racketeering investigator” means any attorney or investigator so designated by the Attorney General and charged with the duty of enforcing or carrying into effect this chapter. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(7).
“racketeering investigation” means any inquiry conducted by any racketeering investigator for the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has been involved in any violation of this chapter or of any final order, judgment, or decree of any court of the United States, duly entered in any case or proceeding arising under this chapter [18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq.]. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(8).
As can be clearly seen from section 1961, the list of affiliated activities is quite large and many organizations and individuals can easily find themselves subject to the stiff penalties and sanctions afforded under RICO. As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that, while the Act refers to “Criminal Organizations,” membership in organized crime is not a necessary element of a RICO conviction. United States v. Uni Oil, Inc. 646 F.2d 946, 953 (5th Cir. 1981).
In order to secure a conviction under the RICO Act, the government must prove both the existence of an “enterprise,” and a connected “pattern of racketeering activity.” United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583 (1981). An enterprise is an entity, and it can be proved by evidence of an ongoing organization, and by evidence that the carious associates function as a continuing unit. Id. The pattern of racketeering activity is a series of criminal acts, which can be proved by evidence of the requisite number of acts of racketeering committed by the participants in the enterprise. Id. Proof of one, however, does not necessarily prove the other. Id. Furthermore. Racketeering enterprises or racketeering predicate acts do not need to be accompanied by an underlying economic motive. NOW v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 259, 261 (1994).
In establishing a pattern of racketeering activity, the prosecutor must show that racketeering predicates are related and that they amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity. H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel, Co. 492 U.S. 229, 240 (1989). This may be done in a variety of ways. Id. at 241. “A party alleging a RICO violation may demonstrate continuity over a closed period by proving a series of related predicates extending over a substantial period of time. Predicate acts extending over a few week or months and threatening no future criminal conduct do not satisfy this requirement.” Id. at 242. Congress, apparently, “was concerned in RICO with longterm criminal conduct.” Id. If continuity cannot be established by showing longterm activity, “liability depends on whether the threat of continuity is demonstrated.” Id. (emph. in original). Because “threat of continuity” depends on the specific facts of each case, it can be sufficiently established “where the predicates can be attributed to a defendant operating as part of a long-term association that exists for criminal purposes.” Id. at 242-43. The continuity requirement can also be satisfied by showing “that the predicates are a regular way of conducting defendant’s ongoing legitimate business (in the sense that it is not a business that exists for criminal purposes), or of conducting or participating in an ongoing and legitimate RICO ‘enterprise.'” Id. at 243.
Defining an “enterprise” is therefore important. An enterprise can technically exist with only one actor to conduct it, even though it will, in most situations, be conducted by more than one person or entity. Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 65 (1997) (dicta). The existence of a RICO enterprise is shown where