Republic of Kaz. v. Stati
civil; Kazakhstan sued the holders of a Stockholm arbitral award under § 1962(c) and (d), alleging the award was procured by fraud and that the enforcement litigation was racketeering; Rule 12(b)(6) motion granted, RICO counts dismissed with prejudice (result: claimant-lost)
Facts
- 7 Racketeering activity (§ 1961(1) enumerated state and federal predicate offenses) not law
Thus, Kazakhstan charges that the Stati Parties misrepresented the value of the LPG plant during the SCC arbitration when they proffered "the fraudulently procured bids," the "falsified financial statements," "false testimony regarding the amount of the investment in the LPG [p]lant," and "expert reports" that restated those figures as evidence.
- 7 Racketeering activity (§ 1961(1) enumerated state and federal predicate offenses) not law
At bottom, the RICO claims are entirely predicated on defendants' initiation and prosecution of non-frivolous litigation, and plaintiff's alleged domestic injuries consist of the legal costs it incurred in resisting the enforcement of a valid and binding arbitral award.
- 7 Racketeering activity (§ 1961(1) enumerated state and federal predicate offenses) not law
Courts do not allow allegedly fraudulent " 'litigation activities,' such as filing fraudulent documents or engaging in baseless litigation to serve as predicate acts for RICO ... where such acts constitute 'the only allegedly fraudulent conduct.' "
- 7 Racketeering activity (§ 1961(1) enumerated state and federal predicate offenses) not law
The predicate acts of mail fraud and wire fraud that Kazakhstan lists to support its RICO claim all involve the filing of legal documents and complaints.
- 7 Racketeering activity (§ 1961(1) enumerated state and federal predicate offenses) not law
But that misses the mark since the alleged "money laundering" consists merely of defendants' payments of their legal fees.