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.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| distinct-from-enterprise/corporation-vs-network-of-owned-and-independent-distributors | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp-2d/926/1143-01 — United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2013 — satisfied | |
| distinct-from-enterprise/defendants-named-as-both-person-and-enterprise | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp/567/1146-01 — United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 1983 — rule-announced/merits | |
| distinct-from-enterprise/sole-shareholder-employee-vs-own-corporation | Corporate president and sole shareholder sued as person with his corporation as the enterprise (Cedric Kushner) | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /us/533/0158-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2001 — satisfied |
| no-distinct-enterprise/corporation-and-its-employees | Pleading corporation as person and corporation-plus-employees/agents as enterprise fails distinctness (Riverwoods / Llacua) | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| Unspecified variant | No variant assigned in the database. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 3 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp-2d/118/0392-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2000 — applied/merits; /f3d/660/0346-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2011 — applied/merits; /f3d/80/1293-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996 — applied/merits |
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 | Culpable person (§ 1961(3)) distinct from the enterprise under (c) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (a),(c),(d) | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f-supp-2d/926/1143-01 — United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2013 | 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. | distinct-from-enterprise/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. |
| /f-supp/567/1146-01 — United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 1983 | 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). | distinct-from-enterprise/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. |
| /f3d/660/0346-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2011 | Culpable person (§ 1961(3)) distinct from the enterprise under (c) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (c) | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/80/1293-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996 | Culpable person (§ 1961(3)) distinct from the enterprise under (c) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (c),(d) | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /us/533/0158-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2001 | 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). | distinct-from-enterprise/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
/us/533/0158-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2001
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
/us/533/0158-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2001
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.
"[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.”
/f-supp-2d/926/1143-01 — United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2013
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.
/f-supp/567/1146-01 — United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 1983
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).