OR · 18usc1962:x-aiding-abetting
Following Central Bank of Denver (511 U.S. 164 (1994)), most courts hold that 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) does not authorize private civil aiding-and-abetting liability under § 1962(c) (though criminal aiding and abetting under 18 U.S.C. § 2 applies, and § 1962(a) expressly cross-references 18 U.S.C. § 2).
Exact element source
as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States CodeSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1962; Unicode character offsets [250:326] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6caae47f43b5ab0899b660616e298363bd36f9f540d915c2be11eb7126f5e27d.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| secondary-liability/no-private-action-for-aiding-and-abetting-rico | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp-2d/118/0392-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2000 — not |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f-supp-2d/118/0392-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2000 | Civil aiding and abetting a RICO violation (rejected as a private cause of action) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; claim: (a),(c),(d); party: relatives, shell entities, title insurer, attorney, and part of the claims against the title agent; theory: aiding and abetting a RICO violation / 18 U.S.C. § 2; subject: party=relatives, shell entities, title insurer, attorney, and part of the claims against the title agent; theory=aiding and abetting a RICO violation / 18 U.S.C. § 2 | secondary-liability/no-private-action-for-aiding-and-abetting-rico | it would appear that the only allegations against (1) the Sichenzia defendants other than Lisa and Michael Sichenzia and Cottrell, (2) Old Republic, (3) DeEsso, and (4) certain allegations against the Artesian defendants are allegations of aiding and abetting.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [41566:41826] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139.Courts in this District have long held that there is no private right of action for aiding and abetting a RICO violation.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [41827:41948] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139.As this Court does not recognize a private right of action for aiding and abetting a RICO violation, Plaintiffs’ causes of action against the all defendants, insofar as they are based on either “aiding and abetting” or 18 U.S.C. § 2, must be dismissed.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [43656:43908] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
Courts in this District have long held that there is no private right of action for aiding and abetting a RICO violation.
/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2000
Courts in this District have long held that there is no private right of action for aiding and abetting a RICO violation.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [41827:41948] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139.Following Central Bank of Denver (511 U.S. 164 (1994)), most courts hold that 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) does not authorize private civil aiding-and-abetting liability under § 1962(c) (though criminal aiding and abetting under 18 U.S.C. § 2 applies, and § 1962(a) expressly cross-references 18 U.S.C. § 2).