Opinion ID: 510217
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Citisource Bribes as a Pattern of Racketeering Activity

Text: 168 Having thus determined that the Citisource bribes properly constitute two predicate acts, we must reach Kaplan's alternative contention that the two Citisource bribes do not constitute a pattern of racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961(5) (1982). In making this argument, Kaplan relies heavily upon the now-famous footnote fourteen in Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985), in which the Supreme Court suggested in dictum that two predicate acts, while necessary to establish a pattern of racketeering activity, might not be sufficient to do so. Id. at 496 n. 14, 105 S.Ct. at 3285-86 n. 14; see 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961(5) ( 'pattern of racketeering activity' requires at least two acts of racketeering activity). In particular, Kaplan points to the Sedima footnote's quotation of the following language from the Senate Report on RICO: 169 The target of [RICO] is thus not sporadic activity. The infiltration of legitimate business normally requires more than one racketeering activity and the threat of continuing activity to be effective. It is this factor of continuity plus relationship which combines to produce a pattern. 170 473 U.S. at 496 n. 14, 105 S.Ct. at 3285-86 n. 14 (quoting, with emphasis added, S.Rep. No. 617, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 158 (1969)). According to Kaplan, the Citisource bribes cannot constitute a pattern of racketeering activity because they arose from a single conversation with Lindenauer and were accordingly an isolated incident of unitary character lacking the continuity to which the footnote in Sedima referred. 171 Our full court has, however, on its own motion granted rehearing in banc in United States v. Indelicato, Nos. 87-1085, 87-1215 (2d Cir. argued June 13, 1988), to address a contention substantially similar to Kaplan's. Since the panel has found Kaplan's other claims regarding his RICO convictions to be without merit, see supra Parts A(2), C(1); infra Part D(1), we will reserve our decision on whether Kaplan's RICO convictions should stand until Indelicato is decided.