AND · 18usc1962:investment
Under § 1962(a), the defendant must have received income from a pattern of racketeering (or unlawful debt collection in which the person participated as a principal under 18 U.S.C. § 2) and used or invested that income in an enterprise; civil § 1962(a) requires "investment injury" distinct from harm caused by the predicate acts themselves.
Exact element source
to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of,Source:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1962; Unicode character offsets [328:499] (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; provisional (1 case) | no definition yet | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler — 510 U.S. 249 (1994) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted |
| _whole accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. | 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 |
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) | Use or investment of racketeering income in an enterprise (§ 1962(a)) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (a),(c),(d); count: § 1962(a) claim; subject: count=§ 1962(a) claim | investment-injury/no-allegation-of-any-investment | Plaintiffs admit, at Section 8(b) of their Amended Civil RICO Statement, that they have no idea whether any alleged income was ever invested by any defendant at all, let alone that it was invested in the alleged enterprise and that they were injured as a result of that investment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [17367:17648] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139.In the instant case, neither Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint nor their Civil RICO Statement sets forth a single allegation relating to any investment whatsoever made by any Defendant, in the alleged enterprise or anywhere else, much less that the Plaintiffs were damaged or injured as a result of such investment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [20368:20679] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139.Because injury by reason of investment of racketeering income in an enterprise is the very foundation of a § 1962(a) claim, Plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient as a matter of law.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [18192:18376] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139.This sweepingly general allegation that the defendants either “retained” or “disposed of’ any income they received plainly fails to allege the required: (I) investment, (2) of any income, (3) in an enterprise.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [21176:21385] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139. |
| National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler — 510 U.S. 249 (1994) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Use or investment of racketeering income in an enterprise (§ 1962(a)) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (c),(d) (a) claim dismissed below (donations were not income derived from the alleged racketeering); certiorari covered only (c) and (d). | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
Because injury by reason of investment of racketeering income in an enterprise is the very foundation of a § 1962(a) claim, Plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient as a matter of law.
Goldfine v. Sichenzia — 118 F. Supp. 2d 392 (2000) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2000 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
Because injury by reason of investment of racketeering income in an enterprise is the very foundation of a § 1962(a) claim, Plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient as a matter of law.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [18192:18376] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139.Under § 1962(a), the defendant must have received income from a pattern of racketeering (or unlawful debt collection in which the person participated as a principal under 18 U.S.C. § 2) and used or invested that income in an enterprise; civil § 1962(a) requires "investment injury" distinct from harm caused by the predicate acts themselves.