Opinion ID: 580784
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Existence of a Pattern

Text: 14 RICO defines a pattern of racketeering activity as requir[ing] at least two acts of racketeering activity occurring within certain time frames. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5) (1988). However, this is only a minimum requirement, H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tele. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 238, 109 S.Ct. 2893, 2900, 106 L.Ed.2d 195 (1989); the concept of a pattern requires proof that the racketeering predicates are related, and that they amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity. Id. at 239, 109 S.Ct. at 2900 (emphasis in original). A relationship between predicate acts exists when the acts are similar in method, purpose, and result. First National Bank & Trust Co. v. Hollingsworth, 931 F.2d 1295, 1304 (8th Cir.1991). Continuity may be demonstrated by proving a series of related predicates extending over a substantial period of time. H.J., 492 U.S. at 242, 109 S.Ct. at 2902. Continuity also exists if the predicate acts or offenses are part of an ongoing entity's regular way of doing business, thereby constituting a threat of causing continuous harm in the future. Id. at 242-43, 109 S.Ct. at 2902-03. Ultimately, the existence of a pattern is a question of fact. Terry A. Lambert Plumbing v. Western Security Bank, 934 F.2d 976, 980 (8th Cir.1991). 15 Holland's argument does not address the relatedness prong of the pattern requirement; instead, he contends the only predicate acts proven were those relating to Diamonds Plus. From this, Holland reasons that proof of continuity was lacking. We disagree with Holland's initial premise: the predicate acts involved Holland placing advertisements in national publications alleging he had immediate access to commercial financing. These advertisements induced people to call him by phone, at which time Holland or a member of his office staff would reinforce the advertisement's representations and ask the callers to mail certain information to Holland's office. There was evidence that in an approximately two year span, between 125 and 350 people flew to Houston to meet with Holland and Peterson--and paid one thousand dollars each for Holland's services--yet none of these people were provided with financing. The district court's conclusion that this constituted a pattern of racketeering activity is clearly correct and does not remotely approach being clearly erroneous.