18 U.S.C. § 1962 · A outline

Under § 1962(b), the acquisition or maintenance of interest/control in the enterprise must occur *through* the pattern of racketeering activity or unlawful debt collection, and civil plaintiffs must show "acquisition injury" distinct from predicate-act injury.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

Covers both insiders ("employed by") and outsiders ("associated with") who exert control or participate in directing enterprise affairs, but excludes the enterprise itself.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

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".

2 merits instance blocks; 2 distinct cases

A de minimis effect on interstate commerce by the enterprise's activities (including detrimental effects on victims engaged in commerce) suffices.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

Reves v. Ernst & Young establishes the "operation or management" test: defendant must have some part in directing the enterprise's affairs (including lower-rung participants acting under upper management's direction, or outsiders exerting control via bribery). Merely furnishing professional services is insufficient.

7 merits instance blocks; 4 distinct cases

Note tension in older or lower-court civil opinions (e.g. Goldfine) that sometimes recite a requirement that each defendant agreed to commit two predicates; Salinas controls in criminal and modern civil cases, though civil § 1962(d) still requires a viable underlying § 1962(a)-(c) violation and an overt act that is itself a RICO predicate under Beck v. Prupis (529 U.S. 494 (2000)).

4 merits instance blocks; 4 distinct cases

Unlike `pattern`, collection of an unlawful debt requires only a single collection of a debt arising from illegal gambling or usurious lending at >= 2x the enforceable rate (e.g. tribal payday lending cases such as Gibbs v. Haynes Invs.).

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

No variants recorded in this snapshot.

Turkette and Boyle govern association-in-fact enterprises: purpose + relationships among associates + longevity sufficient to pursue the purpose.

9 merits instance blocks; 8 distinct cases

• AND Continuing-unit requirement for association-in-fact enterprise

  Associates must function as a continuing unit over time rather than committing isolated, uncoordinated offenses.

  2 merits instance blocks; 2 distinct cases

  Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants

  Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
  continuing-unit/no-common-purpose-or-roles-alleged		1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0	1	/f-supp/567/1146-01 — United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 1983 — not
  continuing-unit/same-participants-repeated-transactions		1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0	1	/f3d/80/1293-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996 — satisfied

• AND Enterprise as an element distinct from the pattern of racketeering activity

  Boyle's operative rule is that enterprise and pattern remain distinct elements, while an association-in-fact needs purpose, relationships, and longevity rather than an additional structure requirement.

  1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases

  Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants

  Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
  distinct-from-pattern/enterprise-defined-only-by-predicate-acts		1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0	1	/f-supp/567/1146-01 — United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 1983 — not
  distinct-from-pattern/inferable-from-pattern-evidence		0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1	0	No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/556/0938-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 — rule-announced/merits

Damages must be concrete, clear, and definite (not speculative or unripe pending exhaustion of contractual/collateral remedies), and must be domestic under RJR Nabisco v. European Community (579 U.S. 325 (2016)).

2 merits instance blocks; 2 distinct cases

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.

1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases

Express statutory safe harbor in § 1962(a) for open-market passive investment purchases totaling <1% of any class of voting/non-voting securities without power to elect a director. Note verbatim typo in statute text ("any pattern or racketeering activity").

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

No variants recorded in this snapshot.

Alternative to `debt` ("or collection of unlawful debt"). Under H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell, statutory minimum of two predicates within 10 years is necessary but not sufficient: requires relatedness + continuity (`pattern.relatedness` and `pattern.continuity`).

1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases

• AND Continuity of predicate acts (closed-ended or open-ended continuity)

  "Continuity" is both a closed- and open-ended concept: either a closed period of repeated conduct extending over a substantial period of time (typically >1 year, evaluated with multi-factor tests in single-victim/single-scheme fraud cases), or past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition.

  3 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases

  Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants

  Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
  continuity/closed-ended-too-short		1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 1	1	/f2d/976/1016-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992 — not Excluded context examples: /f3d/660/0346-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2011 — applied/alternative
  continuity/cover-up-does-not-extend-scheme		1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0	1	/f2d/976/1016-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992 — not
  continuity/open-ended-conclusory-threat		0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1	0	No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/660/0346-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2011 — applied/alternative
  continuity/open-ended-no-threat-scheme-ended-with-employment		1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0	1	/f2d/976/1016-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992 — not

• AND Relatedness of predicate acts (horizontal and vertical relatedness)

  Under H.J. Inc., predicate acts are related if they have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events; in criminal enterprise cases (Weisman), vertical relatedness to the enterprise's affairs also links disparate predicates.

  1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases

  Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants

  Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
  relatedness/same-perpetrator-victims-goal-and-methods		0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1	0	No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f2d/624/1118-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980 — applied/alternative
  relatedness/single-scheme-against-one-victim		1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0	1	/f2d/976/1016-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992 — satisfied
  relatedness/supplied-by-common-enterprise		0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1	0	No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f2d/624/1118-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980 — rule-announced/merits

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).

2 merits instance blocks; 2 distinct cases

Predicate offenses must fall within the exhaustive list in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1); the child entries below are a research subset, and the UNMODELED_PREDICATE_CATALOGUE is intentionally open rather than an implicit claim that the subset is complete. Fraud predicates must be pleaded with particularity under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

• OR Offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11 (§ 1961(1)(D))

  Enumerated in § 1961(1)(D) as "any offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11".

  1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases

  Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants

  Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
  bankruptcy-fraud/skimming-receipts-of-debtor-in-possession		1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0	1	/f2d/624/1118-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980 — satisfied

• OR Conspiracy to commit a § 1961(1)(A) or (D) offense charged as a predicate act

  Distinct from § 1962(d) RICO conspiracy: a conspiracy to commit an offense within § 1961(1)(A) or ("any offense involving...") § 1961(1)(D) can itself count as one of the predicate acts of racketeering.

  1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases

  Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants

  Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
  conspiracy-as-predicate/any-offense-involving-1961-1-d		1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0	1	/f2d/624/1118-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980 — satisfied
  conspiracy-as-predicate/harmless-if-excluded-substantive-predicates-suffice		0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1	0	No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f2d/624/1118-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980 — applied/alternative

• OR Hobbs Act or state-law extortion predicate (18 U.S.C. § 1951; § 1961(1)(A),(B))

  CONTEXT_ONLY: NOW v. Scheidler (510 U.S. 249) held only that a predicate need not have an economic motive and expressly reserved whether the alleged conduct was Hobbs Act extortion. The “obtaining property from another” test from Scheidler II is not quoted or modeled in this pilot.

  0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

  Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants

  Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
  hobbs-act-extortion/non-economic-motive		0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1	0	No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/510/0249-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 — rule-announced/merits

• OR Mail or wire fraud predicate (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343)

  Most common civil RICO predicate; subject to Rule 9(b) particularity and resistance from courts where plaintiffs attempt to dress up an ordinary breach of contract as mail/wire fraud.

  4 merits instance blocks; 3 distinct cases

  Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants

  Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
  rule-9b-particularity/no-who-what-when-where-how		2 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 2; excluded context 1	2	/f-supp/567/1146-01 — United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 1983 — not; /f2d/976/1016-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992 — not Excluded context examples: /f3d/660/0346-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2011 — applied/alternative
  scheme-to-defraud/breach-of-contract-dressed-as-fraud		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
  use-of-mails/mailing-not-incident-to-essential-part-of-scheme		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
  Unspecified variant	No variant assigned in the database.	0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1	0	No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp-2d/926/1143-01 — United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2013 — applied/merits

• OR Obstruction of justice / witness tampering predicate (18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512)

  Perjury or discovery misconduct alone is not a predicate act unless it constitutes indictable obstruction of justice under § 1503 or witness tampering under § 1512.

  0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

  Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants

  Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
  perjury-as-predicate/only-via-mail-fraud-or-section-1503		0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1	0	No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f2d/976/1016-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992 — rule-announced/merits

• OR Fraud in the sale of securities predicate (§ 1961(1)(D))

  Criminal RICO and pre-PSLRA civil RICO include fraud in the sale of securities under § 1961(1)(D); note 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) (added 1995) bars civil RICO claims relying on conduct actionable as securities fraud absent a criminal conviction.

  0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

  Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants

  Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
  securities-fraud/false-prospectus-and-secret-purchase-arrangements		0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1	0	No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f2d/624/1118-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980 — applied/lower-court

• OR Interstate transportation of stolen or fraudulently obtained property (18 U.S.C. §§ 2314, 2315)

  Enumerated in § 1961(1)(B).

  1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases

  Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants

  Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
  interstate-transport-of-fraud-proceeds/value-and-knowledge-not-alleged		1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0	1	/f-supp/567/1146-01 — United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 1983 — not

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).

1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases

Evaluated under a totality-of-the-circumstances five-factor test (time, persons, statutory offenses, overt acts/predicates, locus/enterprise) to determine whether two indictments charge the same enterprise/conspiracy.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

Rejected as a bar to mail/wire fraud RICO predicates sounding in tort rather than contract enforcement.

1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases

General affirmative defense litigated in civil RICO class actions.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

Civil RICO claims are governed by a 4-year statute of limitations borrowed from the Clayton Act (Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff, 483 U.S. 143 (1987)), accruing under the injury-discovery rule (Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000)).

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases