Opinion ID: 76990
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether Corporations May be Sued Under Georgia RICO

Text: 57 Although this is a civil suit, RICO predicate acts are criminal offenses. Cobb County, 460 S.E.2d at 521 (quotation marks omitted). Therefore, in order to determine whether a corporation may be held liable under RICO, Georgia courts look to O.C.G.A. § 16-2-22. See Cobb County, 460 S.E.2d at 521. 58 There are two means by which a corporation may be held liable: (1) directly (under O.C.G.A. § 16-2-22(a)(1)); and (2) through its agents and employees under certain situations (under O.C.G.A. § 16-2-22(a)(2)). The Georgia Supreme Court already has concluded that corporations may not be sued directly under RICO. Clark v. Security Life Ins. Co. of America, 270 Ga. 165, 509 S.E.2d 602, 604 n. 11 (1998) (A corporation may also face prosecution under O.C.G.A. § 16-2-22(a)(1) for a crime if the statute defining the crime clearly indicates a legislative purpose to impose liability on a corporation. RICO, however, is not such a statute....). 59 Although a corporation cannot be prosecuted directly under RICO, a corporation will be liable under Georgia RICO if the `crime is authorized, requested, commanded, performed, or recklessly tolerated by the board of directors or by a managerial official who is acting within the scope of his employment.' Clark, 509 S.E.2d at 604 (quoting § 16-2-22(a)(2)). Whether the acts were performed at the request, command, or authorization of the board of directors or other managers is a question of proof at trial, not a sufficiency-of-the-pleading issue. See State v. Military Circle Pet Center No. 94, Inc., 257 Ga. 388, 360 S.E.2d 248, 249 (1987) (Although the state must prove the applicable provisions of [§ 16-2-22(a)(2)] at trial against a criminal defendant, it is not necessary that the state allege these provisions in the accusation.). 60 In this case, the plaintiffs' complaint alleges that Mohawk supervisors have encouraged these [illegal-immigrant] employees to return to the United States and reapply for work at Mohawk in violation of United States law. Furthermore, Mohawk also has knowingly and recklessly accepted proof of eligibility for employment documents that reflect successive different names for a single person. The plaintiffs' complaint is rife with allegations that supervisors and managers at Mohawk were either aware of, or in reckless disregard of, the misuse of various work-related documents. Consequently, the plaintiffs have alleged sufficient conduct that, if proven, would allow them to hold Mohawk liable under state law.