Opinion ID: 196938
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Establishment of a Predicate Act

Text: 54 Plaintiffs argue that, on the record, a rational trier of fact could find that RIHT engaged in three racketeering predicates: (i) aiding and abetting securities fraud; (ii) mail fraud; and (iii) wire fraud. The district court found that aiding and abetting securities fraud cannot be a RICO predicate, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Central Bank, 511 U.S. at 164, 114 S.Ct. at 1455 (1994) (no private right of action for aiding and abetting under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act), and that the record supports no finding of mail or wire fraud by RIHT. 55 We reserve to another day the issue of whether Central Bank necessarily implies that aiding and abetting securities fraud cannot be a racketeering activity within the meaning of § 1961(1). Even assuming that aiding and abetting securities fraud can be a RICO predicate act, we find the record support for such a claim to be lacking, as we do with respect to the plaintiffs' allegations that RIHT engaged in mail or wire fraud. 56 As for the aiding and abetting allegation, we agree with the district court that the record contains not a scintilla of evidence that would support the requisite finding that RIHT consciously shared in the principal wrongdoer's (Laurel's) specific intent to defraud the plaintiffs. See United States v. Loder, 23 F.3d 586, 590-91 (1st Cir.1994) (describing the elements of criminal aiding and abetting). The lack of evidence of fraudulent intent on the part of RIHT similarly dooms plaintiffs' allegations that the bank committed mail or wire fraud. There is no basis in the record from which a rational trier of fact could conclude that the mailings or wires by RIHT (described in the plaintiffs' brief in only a fleeting fashion) constituted communications in furtherance of a scheme intended to deceive another, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, or other deceptive conduct. McEvoy Travel Bureau, Inc. v. Heritage Travel, Inc., 904 F.2d 786, 791 (1st Cir.) (emphases added), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 992, 111 S.Ct. 536, 112 L.Ed.2d 546 (1990). 57 We conclude that the record contains insufficient evidence to raise a triable issue as to whether RIHT committed any of the RICO predicate acts alleged by the plaintiffs.