OR · 18usc1962:pattern
Alternative to `debt` ("or collection of unlawful debt"). Under H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell, statutory minimum of two predicates within 10 years is necessary but not sufficient: requires relatedness + continuity (`pattern.relatedness` and `pattern.continuity`).
Exact element source
a pattern of racketeering activitySource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1962; Unicode character offsets [1829:1863] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6caae47f43b5ab0899b660616e298363bd36f9f540d915c2be11eb7126f5e27d.a pattern of racketeering activitySource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1962; Unicode character offsets [135:169] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6caae47f43b5ab0899b660616e298363bd36f9f540d915c2be11eb7126f5e27d.a pattern of racketeering activitySource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1962; Unicode character offsets [1303:1337] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6caae47f43b5ab0899b660616e298363bd36f9f540d915c2be11eb7126f5e27d.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unclassified route provisional; 8 observed cases | no definition yet | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 8 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (8). Excluded context examples:Goldfine v. Sichenzia — 118 F. Supp. 2d 392 (2000) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2000 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted Negrete v. Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America — 926 F. Supp. 2d 1143 (2013) · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2013 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted United States v. Calabrese — 490 F.3d 575 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · background/merits · not counted |
| _derivative accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element stands or falls with another element or claim and receives no independent analysis. | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | Seville Industrial Machinery Corp. v. Southmost Machinery Corp. — 567 F. Supp. 1146 (1983) · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 1983 — not · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted |
| _pleading accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element fails or survives purely on generic pleading sufficiency (conclusory allegations, group pleading, Rule 9(b) particularity), without the court reaching any substantive sub-question. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:Crest Construction II, Inc. v. Doe — 660 F.3d 346 (2011) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2011 — not · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/alternative · not counted |
| _whole accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:Republic of Kaz. v. Stati — 380 F. Supp. 3d 55 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2019 — not · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/alternative · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Goldfine v. Sichenzia — 118 F. Supp. 2d 392 (2000) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2000 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Pattern of racketeering activity (§ 1961(5)): at least two predicate acts with relatedness and continuity | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (a),(c),(d) | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Negrete v. Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America — 926 F. Supp. 2d 1143 (2013) · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2013 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Pattern of racketeering activity (§ 1961(5)): at least two predicate acts with relatedness and continuity | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (c),(d) | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Republic of Kaz. v. Stati — 380 F. Supp. 3d 55 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2019 — not · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Pattern of racketeering activity (§ 1961(5)): at least two predicate acts with relatedness and continuity | not Excluded from merits counts applied / alternative basis: pleaded; claim: (c), (d); party: Stati Parties (Anatolie and Gabriel Stati, Ascom Group, Terra Raf); count: Counts I and II, civil RICO § 1962(c) and (d); theory: single scheme, single injury, single victim (Edmondson factors); subject: party=Stati Parties (Anatolie and Gabriel Stati, Ascom Group, Terra Raf); count=Counts I and II, civil RICO § 1962(c) and (d); theory=single scheme, single injury, single victim (Edmondson factors) Independent second ground: a single scheme with a single discrete goal, one injury and one victim is not a pattern under Edmondson, however long it lasted. | one scheme to inflate a plant's value and collect an arbitral award; one injury (legal fees); one victim | While there are various stages to this alleged scheme, ultimately all of the actions described in the complaint were aimed at accomplishing a "single discrete goal," Edmondson , 48 F.3d at 1265 - defendants' efforts to artificially inflate the value of the LPG plant to enrich themselves.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_380.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/380/0055-01; Unicode character offsets [21721:22009] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bd566de524929bccb41114e984dc18db95334e9d31adbdfbae81193088ac38e9.Moreover, plaintiff pled a single, discrete injury - legal fees - and a single victim - itself.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_380.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/380/0055-01; Unicode character offsets [22010:22105] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bd566de524929bccb41114e984dc18db95334e9d31adbdfbae81193088ac38e9.The mere fact that the alleged scheme occurred over an extended period of time, is of no consequence in this case, because the acts listed relate to the same goal, and much of the time spent on these matters was expended dealing with Kazakhstan's repeated efforts to undermine the arbitral award.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_380.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/380/0055-01; Unicode character offsets [23227:23523] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bd566de524929bccb41114e984dc18db95334e9d31adbdfbae81193088ac38e9.Notably, the Court held that when a plaintiff merely alleges a "single scheme, single injury, and few victims," it is "virtually impossible for plaintiffs to state a RICO claim."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_380.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/380/0055-01; Unicode character offsets [21047:21225] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bd566de524929bccb41114e984dc18db95334e9d31adbdfbae81193088ac38e9.Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff has not pled a "pattern of racketeering."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_380.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/380/0055-01; Unicode character offsets [22135:22220] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bd566de524929bccb41114e984dc18db95334e9d31adbdfbae81193088ac38e9. |
| Seville Industrial Machinery Corp. v. Southmost Machinery Corp. — 567 F. Supp. 1146 (1983) · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 1983 — not · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Pattern of racketeering activity (§ 1961(5)): at least two predicate acts with relatedness and continuity | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (b),(c),(d) Pattern fails derivatively: no adequately pleaded predicate acts. Pre-Sedima/H.J. view that any two listed offenses make a pattern. | predicate-acts/predicates-insufficiently-pleaded | It appears from the definition of “pattern of racketeering activity” that any combination of two listed offenses may constitute a “pattern” for RICO purposes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1146-01; Unicode character offsets [26020:26178] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3836bc32665b8e1a72ea181c77043419d514089c013853f5fc10624d665e146c.The First Count of plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed because it fails to allege at least two acts of racketeering activity with sufficient particularity and thus fails to allege that defendants engaged in a “pattern of racketeering activity” as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1962.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1146-01; Unicode character offsets [31169:31449] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3836bc32665b8e1a72ea181c77043419d514089c013853f5fc10624d665e146c. |
| United States v. Calabrese — 490 F.3d 575 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Pattern of racketeering activity (§ 1961(5)): at least two predicate acts with relatedness and continuity | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / merits claim: (d) Overlap of predicate acts between the old and new patterns is discussed only as a double-jeopardy factor; no trimming of overlapping acts ordered. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Crest Construction II, Inc. v. Doe — 660 F.3d 346 (2011) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2011 — not · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Pattern of racketeering activity (§ 1961(5)): at least two predicate acts with relatedness and continuity | not Excluded from merits counts applied / alternative basis: pleaded; claim: (c); theory: two specific predicate acts per defendant; subject: theory=two specific predicate acts per defendant § 1962(c) must be established per defendant: two specific predicate acts each; lumping all defendants together fails. | two-acts-per-defendant/boilerplate-group-pleading | Plaintiffs’ RICO claim identified some, but not all, named defendants.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_660.jsonl#/f3d/660/0346-01; Unicode character offsets [11421:11491] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7242ae3a845a9fa3ef9d25b96ac25219b1844b6afcfbaf06badc6e8e5c6be7c8.A RICO claim must be pleaded with particularity under Rule 9(b).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_660.jsonl#/f3d/660/0346-01; Unicode character offsets [8553:8617] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7242ae3a845a9fa3ef9d25b96ac25219b1844b6afcfbaf06badc6e8e5c6be7c8.We also note that Plaintiffs’ RICO claim is fatally flawed because the complaint fails to adequately specify the predicate acts.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_660.jsonl#/f3d/660/0346-01; Unicode character offsets [25542:25670] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7242ae3a845a9fa3ef9d25b96ac25219b1844b6afcfbaf06badc6e8e5c6be7c8.While the complaint is awash in phrases such as “ongoing scheme,” “pattern of racketeering,” and “participation in a fraudulent scheme,” without more, such phrases are insufficient to form the basis of a RICO claim.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_660.jsonl#/f3d/660/0346-01; Unicode character offsets [19523:19738] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7242ae3a845a9fa3ef9d25b96ac25219b1844b6afcfbaf06badc6e8e5c6be7c8. |
| Chang v. Chen — 80 F.3d 1293 (1996) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Pattern of racketeering activity (§ 1961(5)): at least two predicate acts with relatedness and continuity | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (c),(d) | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Reves v. Ernst — 507 U.S. 170 (1993) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Pattern of racketeering activity (§ 1961(5)): at least two predicate acts with relatedness and continuity | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (c) | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler — 510 U.S. 249 (1994) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Pattern of racketeering activity (§ 1961(5)): at least two predicate acts with relatedness and continuity | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / merits claim: (c),(d) | Unspecified route | The questions whether respondents committed the requisite predicate acts, and whether the commission of these acts fell into a pattern, are not before us.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_510.jsonl#/us/510/0249-01; Unicode character offsets [18308:18462] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cb4e617ad929914e8013956e456c6d025b7f974213b9a4c541b1fdd0f9d49931. |
| Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King — 533 U.S. 158 (2001) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2001 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Pattern of racketeering activity (§ 1961(5)): at least two predicate acts with relatedness and continuity | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (c) Alleged only generically ("at least two instances of fraud and other RICO predicate crimes"); merits left for remand. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Boyle v. United States — 556 U.S. 938 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Pattern of racketeering activity (§ 1961(5)): at least two predicate acts with relatedness and continuity | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (c),(d) Pattern (bank burglaries / night-deposit-box thefts) was found by the jury and not challenged in this Court. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
It appears from the definition of “pattern of racketeering activity” that any combination of two listed offenses may constitute a “pattern” for RICO purposes.
Seville Industrial Machinery Corp. v. Southmost Machinery Corp. — 567 F. Supp. 1146 (1983) · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 1983 (18usc1962: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
It appears from the definition of “pattern of racketeering activity” that any combination of two listed offenses may constitute a “pattern” for RICO purposes.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1146-01; Unicode character offsets [26020:26178] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3836bc32665b8e1a72ea181c77043419d514089c013853f5fc10624d665e146c.Alternative to `debt` ("or collection of unlawful debt"). Under H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell, statutory minimum of two predicates within 10 years is necessary but not sufficient: requires relatedness + continuity (`pattern.relatedness` and `pattern.continuity`).
interpretation
A RICO claim must be pleaded with particularity under Rule 9(b).
Crest Construction II, Inc. v. Doe — 660 F.3d 346 (2011) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2011 (18usc1962: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
A RICO claim must be pleaded with particularity under Rule 9(b).Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_660.jsonl#/f3d/660/0346-01; Unicode character offsets [8553:8617] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7242ae3a845a9fa3ef9d25b96ac25219b1844b6afcfbaf06badc6e8e5c6be7c8.Alternative to `debt` ("or collection of unlawful debt"). Under H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell, statutory minimum of two predicates within 10 years is necessary but not sufficient: requires relatedness + continuity (`pattern.relatedness` and `pattern.continuity`).
interpretation
Count 1 alleges that, through the above-described conduct, all Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), a substantive provision of RICO prohibiting individuals from conducting an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.
Bascuñán v. Elsaca — 927 F.3d 108 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md))
Count 1 alleges that, through the above-described conduct, all Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), a substantive provision of RICO prohibiting individuals from conducting an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0108-01; Unicode character offsets [10704:10937] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98fe49dd88fa827938a668df226c5f2fdb334de0cbade07511388246b19d7f3c.Alternative to `debt` ("or collection of unlawful debt"). Under H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell, statutory minimum of two predicates within 10 years is necessary but not sufficient: requires relatedness + continuity (`pattern.relatedness` and `pattern.continuity`).