AND · 18usc1962:causation
Under Holmes v. SIPC (503 U.S. 258 (1992)), Anza, and Hemi Group, proximate cause requires "some direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged".
Exact element source
It shall be unlawful for any personSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1962; Unicode character offsets [33:68] (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:Midwest Grinding Co. v. Spitz — 976 F.2d 1016 (1992) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1962: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) · 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 Reves v. Ernst — 507 U.S. 170 (1993) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1962: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted |
| investment-injury-rule provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether the injury flows from the use or investment of racketeering income rather than from the predicate acts themselves (§ 1962(a)). | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | Goldfine v. Sichenzia — 118 F. Supp. 2d 392 (2000) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2000 — not · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted |
| proximate-cause provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether the predicate acts directly caused the plaintiff's injury (Holmes, Anza, Bridge). | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | 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 |
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 · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | But-for and proximate causation ("by reason of", 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (a),(c),(d); count: § 1962(a) claim; subject: count=§ 1962(a) claim Under (a) the "by reason of" injury must come from the use/investment of racketeering income, not from the predicate acts themselves (Ouaknine, 2d Cir.). | injury-flows-from-predicate-acts-not-investment | Elsewhere, they make it quite clear that the injury they have allegedly suffered — the supposed non-collectability of their various mortgages and loans — resulted, not from the investment of any money in a RICO enterprise, but rather because of the various predicate actsSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [17649:17920] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139.they fail to state a cause of action under 18 USC § 1962(a). Thus, Plaintiffs’ RICO claims must be dismissed.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [21640:21749] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139. |
| 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) | But-for and proximate causation ("by reason of", 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: triable; claim: (c),(d); party: class members who bought annuities through marketing organizations that are not members of the alleged enterprise; subject: party=class members who bought annuities through marketing organizations that are not members of the alleged enterprise Injury need not pass through an enterprise member: the defendant's own standardized sales documents, done in furtherance of the enterprise's affairs, reach buyers who dealt with non-member sellers. First fact line is the court's summary of plaintiffs' argument, which it then accepts. | purchasers-via-intermediaries-outside-the-enterprise | Because class members that purchased their annuity from non-enterprise FMOs still had to sign the “Allianzmandated” SOU, they suffered an injury by reason of Allianz’s operation of the enterprise.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_926.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/926/1143-01; Unicode character offsets [33147:33343] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21289dc912cdd3fe1c08a082d0c16baed1b869223da6aebc79966cadcfbee6ee.Thus, Allianz’s development of the annuity products, design and dissemination of the marketing materials and SOUs, creation and utilization of the MAC Board to further its marketing efforts, and leadership of the enterprise are all “enterprise activities” that were undertaken in furtherance of an alleged scheme to defraud financial products purchasers.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_926.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/926/1143-01; Unicode character offsets [35075:35429] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21289dc912cdd3fe1c08a082d0c16baed1b869223da6aebc79966cadcfbee6ee.And the “by reason of’ language of section 1964 requires a plaintiff to prove “but for” causation, proximate causation, and a concrete financial loss to a protectable business or property interest.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_926.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/926/1143-01; Unicode character offsets [29748:29945] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21289dc912cdd3fe1c08a082d0c16baed1b869223da6aebc79966cadcfbee6ee.A RICO defendant’s conduct cannot be so neatly divided into “enterprise activities” and “non-enterprise activities,” with only the former supporting liability under RICO.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_926.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/926/1143-01; Unicode character offsets [34638:34808] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21289dc912cdd3fe1c08a082d0c16baed1b869223da6aebc79966cadcfbee6ee.Because all of Allianz’s actions appear to have been in furtherance of the alleged enterprise’s unlawful scheme — and not a frolic and detour by Allianz alone — a reasonable jury could find that all of the class members were directly injured by the enterprise’s affairs.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_926.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/926/1143-01; Unicode character offsets [36928:37198] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21289dc912cdd3fe1c08a082d0c16baed1b869223da6aebc79966cadcfbee6ee. |
| Midwest Grinding Co. v. Spitz — 976 F.2d 1016 (1992) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) | But-for and proximate causation ("by reason of", 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (c),(d) | 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 reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | But-for and proximate causation ("by reason of", 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (c) | 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) | But-for and proximate causation ("by reason of", 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (c) | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
"The Supreme Court requires plaintiffs to establish both but for cause and proximate cause in order to show injury 'by reason of' a RICO violation.
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF LOUISIANA v. River Birch, Inc. — 920 F.3d 958 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 (18usc1962: author: unavailable · not independently reviewed)
"The Supreme Court requires plaintiffs to establish both but for cause and proximate cause in order to show injury 'by reason of' a RICO violation.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_920.jsonl#/f3d/920/0958-01; Unicode character offsets [11394:11541] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43e4170249e2a24056cca48e31088f46875c9dc4419d09a210a34c125ef9232e.Under Holmes v. SIPC (503 U.S. 258 (1992)), Anza, and Hemi Group, proximate cause requires "some direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged".
interpretation
And the “by reason of’ language of section 1964 requires a plaintiff to prove “but for” causation, proximate causation, and a concrete financial loss to a protectable business or property interest.
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)
And the “by reason of’ language of section 1964 requires a plaintiff to prove “but for” causation, proximate causation, and a concrete financial loss to a protectable business or property interest.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_926.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/926/1143-01; Unicode character offsets [29748:29945] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21289dc912cdd3fe1c08a082d0c16baed1b869223da6aebc79966cadcfbee6ee.Under Holmes v. SIPC (503 U.S. 258 (1992)), Anza, and Hemi Group, proximate cause requires "some direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged".
not-required
First-party reliance by the plaintiff on a mail/wire fraud misrepresentation, provided someone's reliance or another direct causal chain proximately caused the injury (Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co., 553 U.S. 639 (2008))
No source quotation recorded.