Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly referred to as RICO Act or RICO) is a United States federal law which provides for extended penalties for criminal acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922 (Oct. 15, 1970). RICO is codified as Chapter 96 of Title 18 of the United States Code, through .

It has been speculated that the name and acronym were selected in a sly reference to the movie Little Caesar, which featured a notorious gangster named "Rico." The original drafter of the bill, G. Robert Blakey, has refused to confirm or deny this.

Summary

Under RICO, a person or group who commits any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period and, in the opinion of the US Attorney bringing the case, has committed those crimes with similar purpose or results can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." The act also contains a civil component that allows plaintiffs to sue for triple damages.

When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This provision is intended to force a defendant to plead guilty before indictment.

There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A "person damaged in his business or property" can sue one or more "racketeers." There must also be an "enterprise." The defendant(s) are not the enterprise, in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise. This lawsuit, like all Federal civil lawsuits, can take place in either Federal or State court. http://www.dealer-magazine.com/index.asp?article=481

RICO offenses and definitions

Racketeering activity means:

Any act or threat involving gambling, murder, kidnapping, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year;
Any act which is indictable under a wide variety of specific provisions of title 18 of the United States Code relating to bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, obscene matter, obstruction of justice, slavery, racketeering, gambling, money laundering, commission of murder-for-hire, etc.
Any act which is indictable under title 29, United States Code, section 186 (dealing with restrictions on payments and loans to labor organizations) or section 501 (c) (relating to embezzlement from union funds),
Any offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11 (except a case under section 157 of this title), fraud in the sale of securities, or the felonious manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), punishable under any law of the United States,
Any act which is indictable under the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act,
Any act which is indictable under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 274 (relating to bringing in and harboring certain aliens), section 277 (relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the United States), or section 278 (relating to importation of alien for immoral purpose) if the act indictable under such section of such Act was committed for the purpose of financial gain, or
Any act that is indictable under any provision listed in section 2332b (g)(5)(B);

Pattern of racketeering activity requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity;

Where RICO laws might be applied

Although some of the RICO predicate acts are extortion and blackmail, one of the most successful applications of the RICO laws has been the ability to indict or sanction individuals for their behavior and actions committed against witnesses and victims in alleged retaliation or retribution for cooperating with law enforcement or intelligence agencies.

The RICO laws can be alleged in cases where civil lawsuits or criminal charges are brought against individuals or corporations in retaliation for said individuals or corporations working with law enforcement, or against individuals or corporations who have sued or filed criminal charges against a defendant.

Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) laws can be applied in an attempt to curb alleged abuses of the legal system by individuals or corporations who utilize the courts as a weapon to retaliate against whistle blowers, victims, or to silence another's speech. RICO could be alleged if it can be shown that lawyers and/or their clients conspired and collaborated to concoct fictitious legal complaints solely in retribution and retaliation for themselves having been brought before the courts.

These laws also apply to victims of clergy abuse where statute of limitations has run out.

Famous cases

On November 21, 1980, Frank "Funzi" Tieri was the first Cosa Nostra boss to be convicted under the RICO Act. In 1988, the owner of Florida Title Insurance, Inc. in Panama City, Florida sent copies of proposed qui.tam suit against 32 defendants with 12 Counts of Racketeering to the Justice Department as required, just to get them returned in a plain manila envelope with no cover letter regarding the RICO Act violations involving a competitor company, the IRS, with the IRS Agent threatening the life of Plaintiff on behalf of defendants and others. IRS Agent was found dead just days after being served by U.S. Marshals. Autopsy was conducted by Coroner later convicted of Murder. Case went before numerous Federal Judges in Northern District of Florida, who denied all motions including one for discovery conference, seizure of assets due to the defendant's failure to appear, 11th Circuit on Appeal with 15 minute argument (first hearing) with most spent trying to get the Government to have an independent autopsy of the IRS Agent and was denied access to Supreme Court due to minute error in spacing and Clerical Abuse of Discretion in pro.ce case.

In 2002, the former minority owners of the Montréal Expos baseball team filed charges under the RICO Act against Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig and former Expos owner Jeffrey Loria, claiming that Selig and Loria deliberately conspired to devalue the team for personal benefit in preparation for a move. If found guilty, Major League Baseball could have been found liable for up to $300 million in punitive damages. The case lasted for two years, successfully stalling the Expos' move to Washington or contraction during that time. It was eventually sent to arbitration and settled for an undisclosed sum, permitting the move to Washington to take place. This happened notably after Loria, now owner of the Florida Marlins, had received a significant financial boost after winning the World Series and Selig refused to permit the Expos to engage in September callups, effectively ending their chances at making the playoffs.

RICO laws were cited in NOW v. Scheidler, a suit in which certain parties sought damages and an injunction against anti-abortion activists who physically block access to abortion clinics.

In 2005, Tanya Andersen of Oregon responded to a lawsuit on behalf of Atlantic Records by in turn suing them under the RICO laws. Her suit alleges that RIAA members, in this particular case Atlantic, engaged in illegal computer trespass, extortion, and unfair trade practices under Oregon state law.

On April 26, 2006 the Supreme Court heard Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams, which concerned what sort of corporations fell under the scope of RICO. Mohawk Industries had alledgely hired illegal alliens, in violation of RICO. The court will decide whether or not Mohawk Industries, along with recruiting agencies, constitutes an 'enterprise' that can be prosecuted under RICO.

References

External links