Offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11 (§ 1961(1)(D))

OR · 18usc1962:racketeering.bankruptcy-fraud

Enumerated in § 1961(1)(D) as "any offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11".

Exact element source

racketeering activity

Source: docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1962; Unicode character offsets [148:169] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6caae47f43b5ab0899b660616e298363bd36f9f540d915c2be11eb7126f5e27d.

All variants

Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants
Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
bankruptcy-fraud/skimming-receipts-of-debtor-in-possession		1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0	1	/f2d/624/1118-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980 — satisfied

How courts decided this element

Annotation blocks, including explicitly excluded context
Case	Element	Holding and scope	Variant	Exact source quotations
/f2d/624/1118-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980	Offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11 (§ 1961(1)(D))	satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (c); party: Weisman; subject: party=Weisman Each of nine bankruptcy-fraud counts was a distinct episode and a separate predicate act.	bankruptcy-fraud/skimming-receipts-of-debtor-in-possession	The newly constructed Theatre opened in March 1975, at which time Weisman and his confederates systematically began to skim and convert to their own use moneys received by the Theatre from ticket sales and various concessions. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_624.jsonl#/f2d/624/1118-01`; Unicode character offsets [3120:3346] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `9f02652be952ebf06fe5bc7850efdd6237ac4cd8110d7ce9690b75ad54eaa6ed`. Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) Nonetheless, Weisman, DePalma and Fusco, now joined by Cannatella, continued secretly to skim the Theatre’s receipts. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_624.jsonl#/f2d/624/1118-01`; Unicode character offsets [4046:4163] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `9f02652be952ebf06fe5bc7850efdd6237ac4cd8110d7ce9690b75ad54eaa6ed`. Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) Thus, even excluding the conspiracy counts as predicate acts, the convictions for securities fraud and bankruptcy fraud could also constitute ten separate predicate acts of racketeering, any two of which would be sufficient to sustain the conviction on the RICO count. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_624.jsonl#/f2d/624/1118-01`; Unicode character offsets [16748:17016] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `9f02652be952ebf06fe5bc7850efdd6237ac4cd8110d7ce9690b75ad54eaa6ed`. Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Court interpretations

interpretation

This language is certainly broad enough on its face to include conspiracies involving securities and bankruptcy fraud and drug related offenses.

/f2d/624/1118-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980

This language is certainly broad enough on its face to include conspiracies involving securities and bankruptcy fraud and drug related offenses.

Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_624.jsonl#/f2d/624/1118-01; Unicode character offsets [14879:15023] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9f02652be952ebf06fe5bc7850efdd6237ac4cd8110d7ce9690b75ad54eaa6ed.

Enumerated in § 1961(1)(D) as "any offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11".