Opinion ID: 530002
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Enterprise Distinct from Person

Text: 34 Section 1962(c), which prohibits a person associated with an enterprise from participating in the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, has been interpreted as requiring that the person named as the defendant cannot also be the entity identified as the enterprise. See Bennett, 685 F.2d at 1061-62 (dismissing one count of plaintiff's complaint for failing to draw a distinction between the enterprise and the person named as the defendant). Here, Atlas and Olson alleged that the enterprise was an association in fact consisting of DiCon, LMH, AES, Stroth, and CACC. Two members, DiCon and LMH, were also persons named as defendants. The appellants contend that, because DiCon and LMH were members of the enterprise, Atlas and Olson have failed to demonstrate that there exists a person distinct from the enterprise. We disagree. 35 Here, the enterprise and the person are not identical, as the appellants assert. The enterprise in this case is an association in fact composed of five entities. 7 A collective entity is something more than the members of which it is comprised. If five persons form an association in fact and engage in a pattern of racketeering activity such as drug smuggling and murder, an individual member could never be prosecuted for violating RICO under the appellants' reasoning because he or she would not be considered distinct from the enterprise. We do not believe that Congress envisioned that this type of conduct would be insulated from RICO prosecutions. Other courts confronted with this issue have reached identical results. See, e.g., Perholtz, 842 F.2d at 353-54; Galerie Furstenberg v. Coffaro, 697 F.Supp. 1282, 1287-88 (S.D.N.Y.1988); Connors v. Lexington Ins. Co., 666 F.Supp. 434, 447-48 (E.D.N.Y.1987). 36 Thus, we find that Atlas and Olson have demonstrated that LMH and DiCon were distinct from the enterprise. 37