AND · 18usc1962:person
Under § 1962(c), a corporate defendant cannot be both the "person" and the "enterprise" (nor can it evade distinctness merely by defining the enterprise as the corporation plus its own employees/agents acting in the course of business).
Exact element source
It shall be unlawful for any personSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1962; Unicode character offsets [1565:1600] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6caae47f43b5ab0899b660616e298363bd36f9f540d915c2be11eb7126f5e27d.It shall be unlawful for any personSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1962; Unicode character offsets [33:68] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6caae47f43b5ab0899b660616e298363bd36f9f540d915c2be11eb7126f5e27d.It shall be unlawful for any personSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1962; Unicode character offsets [1259:1294] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6caae47f43b5ab0899b660616e298363bd36f9f540d915c2be11eb7126f5e27d.It shall be unlawful for any personSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1962; Unicode character offsets [1900:1935] (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; 3 observed cases | no definition yet | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 3 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (3). 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 Crest Construction II, Inc. v. Doe — 660 F.3d 346 (2011) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2011 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1962: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted Chang v. Chen — 80 F.3d 1293 (1996) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996 — 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 |
| distinct-from-enterprise provisional; 5 observed cases | Whether the defendant "person" is distinct from the "enterprise" (Cedric Kushner). | 5 Satisfied 4; not satisfied 1; excluded context 1 | 4 | 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 — satisfied · triable (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted United States v. Mongol Nation — 370 F. Supp. 3d 1090 (2019) · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2019 — satisfied · proved (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted Llacua v. Western Range Ass'n — 930 F.3d 1161 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 — not · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted Llacua v. Western Range Ass'n — 930 F.3d 1161 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted 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 reached · basis not recorded (18usc1962: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · 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) | Culpable person (§ 1961(3)) distinct from the enterprise under (c) | 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 — satisfied · triable (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Culpable person (§ 1961(3)) distinct from the enterprise under (c) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: triable; claim: (c),(d); party: Allianz (person) vs. "Senior Annuity Enterprise" (Allianz + 13 Allianz-owned marketing organizations + 6 independent ones); subject: party=Allianz (person) vs. "Senior Annuity Enterprise" (Allianz + 13 Allianz-owned marketing organizations + 6 independent ones) Defendant corporation is the only RICO person and is itself a member of the association-in-fact. Distinctness survives because the other members are separately incorporated and six are unowned affiliates that sell rivals' products; "agent" labels in contracts and substantial control do not collapse them into the defendant. Rejects the single-corporate-family line (Riverwoods/Fitzgerald/Fogie) on these facts, and holds that even a "something more" test would be triable. | corporation-vs-network-of-owned-and-independent-distributors | According to plaintiffs, the Senior Annuity Enterprise consists of Allianz, the 13 FMOs in which Allianz holds ownership interests, and the 6 FMOs who have served as board members of the Market Advisory Committee (“MAC”).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_926.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/926/1143-01; Unicode character offsets [11962:12183] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21289dc912cdd3fe1c08a082d0c16baed1b869223da6aebc79966cadcfbee6ee.The degree of control Allianz exercises over the FMOs it does not own is defined by contract, PSGI ¶ 61, and Allianz and these FMOs do not share executives, employees, or co-mingle operating funds, and the FMOs handle payment of their operating expenses and employees.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_926.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/926/1143-01; Unicode character offsets [13436:13704] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21289dc912cdd3fe1c08a082d0c16baed1b869223da6aebc79966cadcfbee6ee.In addition, these FMOs sell various securities products offered by other insurance companies, including non-annuity products, and some of the FMOs also provide unrelated services like tax consulting, stock advice, and brokerage services.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_926.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/926/1143-01; Unicode character offsets [14139:14377] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21289dc912cdd3fe1c08a082d0c16baed1b869223da6aebc79966cadcfbee6ee.Unlike situations where a single corporate defendant is alleged to have “conspirefd] with himself,” River City, 960 F.2d at 1461, Allianz is alleged to have conspired with 19 formally-separate corporate entities (the enterprise) in furtherance of its alleged scheme to defraud.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_926.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/926/1143-01; Unicode character offsets [19420:19697] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21289dc912cdd3fe1c08a082d0c16baed1b869223da6aebc79966cadcfbee6ee.And whether Allianz-owned or not, none of the FMOs are pled as RICO persons in this case.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_926.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/926/1143-01; Unicode character offsets [25423:25512] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21289dc912cdd3fe1c08a082d0c16baed1b869223da6aebc79966cadcfbee6ee.Stated otherwise, the enterprise must be either “formally or practically separable from the person.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_926.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/926/1143-01; Unicode character offsets [11379:11479] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21289dc912cdd3fe1c08a082d0c16baed1b869223da6aebc79966cadcfbee6ee.Quite simply, there is nothing inconsistent between a finding that Allianz has exerted some control over the FMOs at issue on the one hand, with a finding that the level of control that Allianz has exerted does not render the alleged enterprise indistinguishable from Allianz itself on the other.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_926.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/926/1143-01; Unicode character offsets [22033:22329] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21289dc912cdd3fe1c08a082d0c16baed1b869223da6aebc79966cadcfbee6ee.This formal separation is alone sufficient to support a finding of distinctiveness.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_926.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/926/1143-01; Unicode character offsets [19753:19836] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21289dc912cdd3fe1c08a082d0c16baed1b869223da6aebc79966cadcfbee6ee.For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that disputed issues of fact preclude a grant of summary judgment in Allianz’s favor on the issue of distinctiveness.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_926.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/926/1143-01; Unicode character offsets [29070:29237] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21289dc912cdd3fe1c08a082d0c16baed1b869223da6aebc79966cadcfbee6ee. |
| United States v. Mongol Nation — 370 F. Supp. 3d 1090 (2019) · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2019 — satisfied · proved (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Culpable person (§ 1961(3)) distinct from the enterprise under (c) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (c), (d); party: Mongol Nation (unincorporated association, the defendant); count: Counts One and Two: substantive RICO § 1962(c) and RICO conspiracy § 1962(d); theory: defendant association is a part of, and so distinct from, the larger Mongols Gang enterprise; subject: party=Mongol Nation (unincorporated association, the defendant); count=Counts One and Two: substantive RICO § 1962(c) and RICO conspiracy § 1962(d); theory=defendant association is a part of, and so distinct from, the larger Mongols Gang enterprise Rule 29 motion denied: the jury's verdict stands on the distinctness of the defendant association from the Mongols Gang enterprise. The same sentence also rejects the argument that an unincorporated association cannot commit the violent predicate acts. | unincorporated motorcycle club charged as the person; enterprise is the larger gang made up of the club plus additional individuals | Mongol Nation was alleged to be part of a larger whole, the Mongols Gang, which is comprised of additional individuals who together form the alleged enterpriseSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_370.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/370/1090-01; Unicode character offsets [26377:26536] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7d4b1ea5c894d2b99b4ec89df2e487cab672222c07aadfcbd49bead46954a830.Consistent with the Ninth Circuit's previous ruling in this case, the evidence demonstrated that the Mongol Nation is distinct from the Mongol Gang; and the Mongol Nation is legally capable of committing the underlying RICO acts.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_370.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/370/1090-01; Unicode character offsets [9423:9652] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7d4b1ea5c894d2b99b4ec89df2e487cab672222c07aadfcbd49bead46954a830. |
| 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 reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Culpable person (§ 1961(3)) distinct from the enterprise under (c) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (b),(c),(d) Court doubts the Third Circuit requires person/enterprise distinctness as a "fourth element" and leaves it open, though it reasons elsewhere that a single-person enterprise cannot violate (b) or (c). | defendants-named-as-both-person-and-enterprise | Plaintiff alleges that defendants are both the “enterprise” and the racketeers operating the enterprise.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1146-01; Unicode character offsets [18960:19064] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3836bc32665b8e1a72ea181c77043419d514089c013853f5fc10624d665e146c.A corporation such as Southmost and Tri-State could not employ itself or associate with itself.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1146-01; Unicode character offsets [9355:9450] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3836bc32665b8e1a72ea181c77043419d514089c013853f5fc10624d665e146c.It is unnecessary to reach this question, however.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1146-01; Unicode character offsets [21884:21934] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3836bc32665b8e1a72ea181c77043419d514089c013853f5fc10624d665e146c. |
| Crest Construction II, Inc. v. Doe — 660 F.3d 346 (2011) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2011 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Culpable person (§ 1961(3)) distinct from the enterprise under (c) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (c) | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| 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) | Culpable person (§ 1961(3)) distinct from the enterprise under (c) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (c),(d) | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Llacua v. Western Range Ass'n — 930 F.3d 1161 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 — not · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Culpable person (§ 1961(3)) distinct from the enterprise under (c) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (c); party: Western Range Association (WRA) and Mountain Plains Agricultural Service (MPAS), membership associations of sheep ranchers, each sued as the RICO person; count: § 1962(c) claims of the second amended complaint; theory: distinctness between person and enterprise; subject: party=Western Range Association (WRA) and Mountain Plains Agricultural Service (MPAS), membership associations of sheep ranchers, each sued as the RICO person; count=§ 1962(c) claims of the second amended complaint; theory=distinctness between person and enterprise An association sued as the RICO person is not distinct from an association-in-fact made up solely of itself and its members doing what the association normally does (Yellow Bus Lines rule adopted). | membership association named as the person; enterprise pleaded as the association plus its own members | WRA and MPAS are membership associations for sheep ranchers. They recruit and hire shepherds for their member ranches.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/1161-01; Unicode character offsets [4882:5000] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cc9bea2fae30255ea5832b87a42b4f4094eeed54bb0faae67c52b993a3ef075f.The limited allegations in the SAC merely state that each Association Defendant has formed an association-in-fact with its members, the common purpose of each member of these associations-in-fact is to recruit shepherds at low wages, and that Association Defendants file job orders and H-2A Applications on behalf of their membership.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/1161-01; Unicode character offsets [45672:46006] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cc9bea2fae30255ea5832b87a42b4f4094eeed54bb0faae67c52b993a3ef075f.The SAC further asserts, in entirely conclusory fashion, that the Association Defendants are the "lynchpins" of the alleged associations-in-fact.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/1161-01; Unicode character offsets [46239:46384] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cc9bea2fae30255ea5832b87a42b4f4094eeed54bb0faae67c52b993a3ef075f.In short, an organization cannot join with its own members to do that which it normally does and thereby form an enterprise separate and apart from itself.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/1161-01; Unicode character offsets [44323:44478] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cc9bea2fae30255ea5832b87a42b4f4094eeed54bb0faae67c52b993a3ef075f.Based on these limited allegations, this court can perceive no distinction between the alleged RICO persons (WRA and MPAS) and the corresponding RICO enterprises (WRA and its members and MPAS and its members).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/1161-01; Unicode character offsets [46385:46594] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cc9bea2fae30255ea5832b87a42b4f4094eeed54bb0faae67c52b993a3ef075f. |
| Llacua v. Western Range Ass'n — 930 F.3d 1161 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Culpable person (§ 1961(3)) distinct from the enterprise under (c) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (c); party: Dennis Richins, executive director, board member and president of WRA, sued as the RICO person; count: § 1962(c) claims of the second amended complaint; theory: distinctness between person and enterprise; subject: party=Dennis Richins, executive director, board member and president of WRA, sued as the RICO person; count=§ 1962(c) claims of the second amended complaint; theory=distinctness between person and enterprise Cedric Kushner applied: the officer is legally distinct from the association whose affairs he conducts. The district court's contrary rule applies only where the corporation itself is the defendant person. | association officer named as the person; the association he runs as the enterprise | Brannon and Cedric Kushner make clear that the RICO distinctness requirement is satisfied when a corporate officer, such as Richins in his role as executive director, board member, and president of WRA, is sued as the RICO defendant person and the alleged RICO enterprise is the corporation or association (i.e., WRA).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/1161-01; Unicode character offsets [43096:43414] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cc9bea2fae30255ea5832b87a42b4f4094eeed54bb0faae67c52b993a3ef075f.The corporate owner/employee, a natural person, is distinct from the corporation itself, a legally different entity with different rights and responsibilities due to its different legal status.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/1161-01; Unicode character offsets [41955:42148] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cc9bea2fae30255ea5832b87a42b4f4094eeed54bb0faae67c52b993a3ef075f.Thus, the district court erred in determining, as a matter of law, that Richins was not distinct from WRA.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/1161-01; Unicode character offsets [43415:43521] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cc9bea2fae30255ea5832b87a42b4f4094eeed54bb0faae67c52b993a3ef075f. |
| Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King — 533 U.S. 158 (2001) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2001 — satisfied · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Culpable person (§ 1961(3)) distinct from the enterprise under (c) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (c); party: Don King, president and sole shareholder of Don King Productions (defendant; the alleged "person"); Don King Productions, a corporation (non-party; the alleged "enterprise"); subject: party=Don King, president and sole shareholder of Don King Productions (defendant; the alleged "person"); Don King Productions, a corporation (non-party; the alleged "enterprise") Scope-of-authority is irrelevant to distinctness (hence [neutral]: CA2 had treated it as defeating distinctness; this Court holds it does not matter). Contrast (not decided): corporation as person + corporation-with-its-employees as enterprise (Riverwoods). | sole-shareholder-employee-vs-own-corporation | Petitioner sued Don King, the president and sole shareholder of Don King Productions, a corporation, claiming that King had conducted the boxing-related affairs of Don King Productions in part through a RICO “pattern,”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_533.jsonl#/us/533/0158-01; Unicode character offsets [1322:1540] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4a05c3529d1a4290e7525b1ae0fd4713c5f1ea12a0eeedd68da3f1beb58dbc82.to establish liability under § 1962(c) one must allege and prove the existence of two distinct entities: (1) a “person”; and (2) an “enterprise” that is not simply the same “person” referred to by a different nameSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_533.jsonl#/us/533/0158-01; Unicode character offsets [3149:3362] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4a05c3529d1a4290e7525b1ae0fd4713c5f1ea12a0eeedd68da3f1beb58dbc82.the statute requires no more than the formal legal distinction between “person” and “enterprise” (namely, incorporation) that is present hereSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_533.jsonl#/us/533/0158-01; Unicode character offsets [11630:11771] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4a05c3529d1a4290e7525b1ae0fd4713c5f1ea12a0eeedd68da3f1beb58dbc82.we hold simply that the need for two distinct entities is satisfiedSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_533.jsonl#/us/533/0158-01; Unicode character offsets [13149:13216] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4a05c3529d1a4290e7525b1ae0fd4713c5f1ea12a0eeedd68da3f1beb58dbc82. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
to establish liability under § 1962(c) one must allege and prove the existence of two distinct entities: (1) a “person”; and (2) an “enterprise” that is not simply the same “person” referred to by a different name
Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King — 533 U.S. 158 (2001) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2001 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
to establish liability under § 1962(c) one must allege and prove the existence of two distinct entities: (1) a “person”; and (2) an “enterprise” that is not simply the same “person” referred to by a different nameSource:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_533.jsonl#/us/533/0158-01; Unicode character offsets [3149:3362] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4a05c3529d1a4290e7525b1ae0fd4713c5f1ea12a0eeedd68da3f1beb58dbc82.Under § 1962(c), a corporate defendant cannot be both the "person" and the "enterprise" (nor can it evade distinctness merely by defining the enterprise as the corporation plus its own employees/agents acting in the course of business).
interpretation
the statute requires no more than the formal legal distinction between “person” and “enterprise” (namely, incorporation) that is present here
Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King — 533 U.S. 158 (2001) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2001 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
the statute requires no more than the formal legal distinction between “person” and “enterprise” (namely, incorporation) that is present hereSource:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_533.jsonl#/us/533/0158-01; Unicode character offsets [11630:11771] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4a05c3529d1a4290e7525b1ae0fd4713c5f1ea12a0eeedd68da3f1beb58dbc82.Under § 1962(c), a corporate defendant cannot be both the "person" and the "enterprise" (nor can it evade distinctness merely by defining the enterprise as the corporation plus its own employees/agents acting in the course of business).
interpretation
"[T]o establish liability under § 1962(c) one must allege and prove the existence of two distinct entities: (1) a 'person'; and (2) an 'enterprise' that is not simply the same 'person' referred to by a different name.
Llacua v. Western Range Ass'n — 930 F.3d 1161 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md))
"[T]o establish liability under § 1962(c) one must allege and prove the existence of two distinct entities: (1) a 'person'; and (2) an 'enterprise' that is not simply the same 'person' referred to by a different name.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/1161-01; Unicode character offsets [17834:18051] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cc9bea2fae30255ea5832b87a42b4f4094eeed54bb0faae67c52b993a3ef075f.Under § 1962(c), a corporate defendant cannot be both the "person" and the "enterprise" (nor can it evade distinctness merely by defining the enterprise as the corporation plus its own employees/agents acting in the course of business).
interpretation
Stated otherwise, the enterprise must be either “formally or practically separable from the person.”
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 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
Stated otherwise, the enterprise must be either “formally or practically separable from the person.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_926.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/926/1143-01; Unicode character offsets [11379:11479] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21289dc912cdd3fe1c08a082d0c16baed1b869223da6aebc79966cadcfbee6ee.Under § 1962(c), a corporate defendant cannot be both the "person" and the "enterprise" (nor can it evade distinctness merely by defining the enterprise as the corporation plus its own employees/agents acting in the course of business).
interpretation
A corporation such as Southmost and Tri-State could not employ itself or associate with itself.
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)
A corporation such as Southmost and Tri-State could not employ itself or associate with itself.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1146-01; Unicode character offsets [9355:9450] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3836bc32665b8e1a72ea181c77043419d514089c013853f5fc10624d665e146c.Under § 1962(c), a corporate defendant cannot be both the "person" and the "enterprise" (nor can it evade distinctness merely by defining the enterprise as the corporation plus its own employees/agents acting in the course of business).