Source: law/18usc1962.law
# 18 U.S.C. § 1962 — Prohibited activities (RICO)
# Reverse-engineered from verbatim statutory text + citing cases in statute_cited_by.json & neov2/cases/18usc1962/
law 18usc1962
cite 18 U.S.C. § 1962
title Prohibited activities (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
url https://www.neochart.com/catalog/federal/title_18/section_1962/title18_sec1962_65ddd1cfa156/1962_prohibited_activities_0001/index.html
address catalog/federal/title_18/section_1962/title18_sec1962_65ddd1cfa156/1962_prohibited_activities_0001/index.html
source ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1962 sha1=57ed177ad5786b387da0974a8e00b64d762eb06c chars=2176
claim (a) : person & (pattern & racketeering | debt) & investment & enterprise & commerce & !open-market-investment
gloss Subsection (a) targets investment/laundering of racketeering income or unlawful-debt proceeds into an enterprise ("prize" or "investment target"). Civil plaintiffs must show injury flowing from the use/investment of racketeering income, not merely from the predicate acts.
claim (b) : person & (pattern & racketeering | debt) & acquisition & enterprise & commerce
gloss Subsection (b) targets acquisition or maintenance of an interest in or control of an enterprise ("victim" or "target") through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.
claim (c) : person & enterprise & commerce & association & conduct & (pattern & racketeering | debt)
gloss Subsection (c) is the workhorse RICO offense: conducting or participating in the conduct of an enterprise's affairs ("vehicle") through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.
claim (d) : person & conspiracy
gloss Subsection (d) proscribes conspiring to violate subsection (a), (b), or (c). Under Salinas, requires no overt act and no personal agreement to commit two predicates, though civil (d) claims fail if the substantive (a)-(c) claim fails.
claim civil : ((a) | (b) | (c) | (d)) & injury & causation & !x-statute-of-limitations & !x-release-prior-class-settlement
gloss Private treble-damages suit via 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) requires injury to "business or property" and both but-for and proximate causation ("by reason of").
constraint distinct(person, enterprise) : Under § 1962(c), the culpable "person" and the "enterprise" must be distinct entities, though a corporate owner/employee is legally distinct from the incorporated enterprise.
rule /us/533/0158-01 @3149..3362 | 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
rule /f3d/930/1161-01 @17834..18051 | "[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.
gloss Applies to § 1962(c) ("employed by or associated with"), not necessarily to § 1962(a) where a corporate enterprise may invest racketeering income in itself.
constraint separate-elements-overlapping-proof(enterprise, pattern) : Enterprise and pattern of racketeering activity are distinct elements, but the same trial evidence may support inferring both.
rule /us/556/0938-01 @10143..10299 | the existence of an enterprise is an element distinct from the pattern of racketeering activity and “proof of one does not necessarily establish the other.”
rule /us/556/0938-01 @10338..10558 | if the phrase is used to mean that the existence of an enterprise may never be inferred from the evidence showing that persons associated with the enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, it is incorrect
constraint enterprise-role-by-subsection(enterprise, investment, acquisition, conduct) : The enterprise is the "prize" or "victim" acquired or invested in under (a) and (b), but is the "vehicle" through which unlawful activity is conducted under (c).
rule /us/510/0249-01 @12588..12869 | Consequently, since the enterprise in subsection (c) is not being acquired, it need not have a property interest that can be acquired nor an economic motive for engaging in illegal activity; it need only be an association in fact that engages in a pattern of racketeering activity.
element person : and
name Culpable person (§ 1961(3)) distinct from the enterprise under (c)
text @1565..1600 | It shall be unlawful for any person
text @33..68 | It shall be unlawful for any person
text @1259..1294 | It shall be unlawful for any person
text @1900..1935 | It shall be unlawful for any person
xref 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3) | "person" includes any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property
rule /us/533/0158-01 @3149..3362 | 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
rule /us/533/0158-01 @11630..11771 | the statute requires no more than the formal legal distinction between “person” and “enterprise” (namely, incorporation) that is present here
rule /f3d/930/1161-01 @17834..18051 | "[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.
rule /f-supp-2d/926/1143-01 @11379..11479 | Stated otherwise, the enterprise must be either “formally or practically separable from the person.”
rule /f-supp/567/1146-01 @9355..9450 | A corporation such as Southmost and Tri-State could not employ itself or associate with itself.
variant 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)
variant no-distinct-enterprise/corporation-and-its-employees | Pleading corporation as person and corporation-plus-employees/agents as enterprise fails distinctness (Riverwoods / Llacua)
gloss 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).
element enterprise : and
name Enterprise (§ 1961(4)): legal entity or association-in-fact
text @1632..1646 | any enterprise
text @500..514 | any enterprise
text @1458..1472 | any enterprise
xref 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) | "enterprise" includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity
rule /us/556/0938-01 @7754..7989 | an association-in-fact enterprise must have at least three structural features: a purpose, relationships among those associated with the enterprise, and longevity sufficient to permit these associates to pursue the enterprise’s purpose
rule /us/556/0938-01 @11974..12176 | Such a group need not have a hierarchical structure or a “chain of command”; decisions may be made on an ad hoc basis and by any number of methods — by majority vote, consensus, a show of strength, etc.
rule /us/510/0249-01 @15516..15666 | Congress has not, either in the definitional section or in the operative language, required that an “enterprise” in § 1962(c) have an economic motive.
rule /f3d/930/1161-01 @17447..17743 | The latter type of enterprise, an "association-in-fact," is a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct and requires evidence of an ongoing organization, formal or informal, and evidence that the various associates function as a continuing unit.
rule /f-supp-3d/374/0361-01 @22447..22820 | Here, Plaintiffs allege the existence of an "association-in-fact" enterprise, which requires its own three-part showing: "(1) there exists an ongoing organization, formal or informal; (2) the various associates of the organization function as a continuing unit; and (3) the organization has an existence separate and apart from the alleged pattern of racketeering activity.
not-required Economic or profit-seeking motive (NOW v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249 (1994))
not-required Formal hierarchy, chain of command, fixed roles, name, regular meetings, or bylaws (Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009))
variant association-in-fact/informal-crew | Loosely organized criminal group with common purpose, relationships, and longevity (Boyle)
variant association-in-fact/non-economic-advocacy-coalition | Ideological coalition without profit motive (NOW v. Scheidler)
variant legal-entity/closely-held-corporation | Formal corporation used as vehicle (Cedric Kushner)
gloss Turkette and Boyle govern association-in-fact enterprises: purpose + relationships among associates + longevity sufficient to pursue the purpose.
element enterprise.continuing-unit : and
name Continuing-unit requirement for association-in-fact enterprise
text @500..514 | any enterprise
rule /f3d/80/1293-01 @7959..8155 | establishing the existence of an associated-in-fact enterprise requires proof (1) of an ongoing organization, formal or informal, and (2) that the various associates function as a continuing unit.
rule /f-supp/567/1146-01 @16272..16463 | The Court explained that each person must perform a role in the group which is consistent with the enterprise’s organizational structure and which furthers the activities of the organization.
gloss Associates must function as a continuing unit over time rather than committing isolated, uncoordinated offenses.
element enterprise.distinct-from-pattern : and
name Enterprise as an element distinct from the pattern of racketeering activity
text @500..514 | any enterprise
rule /us/556/0938-01 @10143..10299 | the existence of an enterprise is an element distinct from the pattern of racketeering activity and “proof of one does not necessarily establish the other.”
rule /us/556/0938-01 @10338..10558 | if the phrase is used to mean that the existence of an enterprise may never be inferred from the evidence showing that persons associated with the enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, it is incorrect
not-required Historical pre-Boyle ascertainable-structure formulation in Seville/Chang (dated doctrine; not an operative post-Boyle requirement)
gloss 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.
element commerce : and
name Interstate or foreign commerce nexus
text @1647..1724 | engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce
text @515..601 | which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce
text @1473..1559 | which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce
rule /us/510/0249-01 @9808..9942 | An enterprise surely can have a detrimental influence on interstate or foreign commerce without having its own profit-seeking motives.
rule /f3d/932/0242-01 @28535..28814 | To obtain a conviction under this statute, the government was required to prove "that an enterprise affecting interstate commerce existed; that each defendant knowingly and intentionally agreed with another person to conduct or participate in the affairs of the enterprise; and .
gloss A de minimis effect on interstate commerce by the enterprise's activities (including detrimental effects on victims engaged in commerce) suffices.
element association : and
name Defendant employed by or associated with the enterprise (§ 1962(c))
text @1601..1631 | employed by or associated with
rule /us/533/0158-01 @8149..8238 | It is natural to speak of a corporate employee as a “person employed by” the corporation.
rule /us/507/0170-01 @21209..21518 | An enterprise is “operated” not just by upper management but also by lower rung participants in the enterprise who are under the direction of upper management. An enterprise also might be “operated” or “managed” by others “associated with” the enterprise who exert control over it as, for example, by bribery.
gloss Covers both insiders ("employed by") and outsiders ("associated with") who exert control or participate in directing enterprise affairs, but excludes the enterprise itself.
element conduct : and
name Conduct or participate in the conduct of enterprise affairs (§ 1962(c) operation or management test)
text @1726..1820 | to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs
rule /us/507/0170-01 @13559..13706 | In order to “participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs,” one must have some part in directing those affairs.
rule /us/507/0170-01 @23127..23334 | In sum, we hold that “to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs,” § 1962(c), one must participate in the operation or management of the enterprise itself.
rule /f-supp-2d/118/0392-01 @31621..31796 | In addition, the mere fact that a defendant may have aided in the alleged scheme to defraud, even if that aid was intentional, does not give rise to liability under § 1962(c).
variant no-operation-or-management/outside-auditor | Outside professional providing accounting/legal services without directing enterprise affairs (Reves)
gloss 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.
element pattern : or
name Pattern of racketeering activity (§ 1961(5)): at least two predicate acts with relatedness and continuity
text @1829..1863 | a pattern of racketeering activity
text @135..169 | a pattern of racketeering activity
text @1303..1337 | a pattern of racketeering activity
xref 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5) | "pattern of racketeering activity" requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity
rule /f-supp/567/1146-01 @26020..26178 | It appears from the definition of “pattern of racketeering activity” that any combination of two listed offenses may constitute a “pattern” for RICO purposes.
rule /f3d/660/0346-01 @8553..8617 | A RICO claim must be pleaded with particularity under Rule 9(b).
rule /f3d/927/0108-01 @10704..10937 | Count 1 alleges that, through the above-described conduct, all Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), a substantive provision of RICO prohibiting individuals from conducting an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.
gloss 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`).
element pattern.relatedness : and
name Relatedness of predicate acts (horizontal and vertical relatedness)
text @135..169 | a pattern of racketeering activity
rule /f2d/624/1118-01 @9856..10094 | the statutory language does not expressly require that the predicate acts of racketeering be specifically “related” to each other and we find no affirmative evidence in the legislative history from which we should infer such a requirement
rule /f2d/624/1118-01 @10752..10938 | Thus, the enterprise itself supplies a significant unifying link between the various predicate acts specified in section 1961(1) that may constitute a “pattern of racketeering activity.”
gloss 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.
element pattern.continuity : and
name Continuity of predicate acts (closed-ended or open-ended continuity)
text @135..169 | a pattern of racketeering activity
rule /f2d/976/1016-01 @19762..19916 | To satisfy the continuity element in a closed-ended case, the plaintiff must prove a series of related predicates enduring a “substantial period of time.”
rule /f2d/976/1016-01 @20458..20760 | Such a threat of continuity exists when the plaintiff can show (1) a “specific threat of repetition,” (2) that the “predicate acts or offenses are part of an ongoing entity’s regular way of doing business,” or (3) that the defendant operates a “long-term association that exists for criminal purposes.”
rule /f2d/976/1016-01 @24093..24349 | According to Mor gan, continuity is a function of the duration of time over which the predicate acts were committed, the number and variety of predicate acts, the number of victims, the presence of separate schemes, and the occurrence of distinct injuries.
rule /f3d/660/0346-01 @23781..23916 | We have held that closed-ended continuity “can be shown by related acts continuing over a period of time lasting at least one year____”
gloss "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.
element racketeering : and
name Racketeering activity (§ 1961(1) enumerated state and federal predicate offenses)
text @148..169 | racketeering activity
xref 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) | enumerates state felony predicates (murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, obscenity, narcotics) and federal statutory predicates (mail/wire/bank/securities/bankruptcy fraud, Hobbs Act, Travel Act, obstruction, money laundering, etc.)
not-required Prior criminal conviction of the predicate acts (Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (1985))
not-required Financial or economic motive for the predicate acts (NOW v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249 (1994))
not-required UNMODELED_PREDICATE_CATALOGUE: the exhaustive § 1961(1) list also includes murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, narcotics, immigration-document offenses, financial-institution fraud, false statements, money laundering, and additional obstruction, securities, bankruptcy, and state-law predicates not decomposed as child elements in this pilot.
variant unmodeled/remaining-section-1961-1 | Explicit open catalogue: murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, narcotics, immigration-document offenses, financial-institution fraud, false statements, money laundering, and additional obstruction, securities, bankruptcy, and state-law predicates remain to be decomposed.
gloss 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).
element racketeering.mail-fraud : or
name Mail or wire fraud predicate (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343)
text @148..169 | racketeering activity
rule /f-supp/567/1146-01 @27057..27354 | The elements of an indictable offense under the federal mail and wire fraud statutes are: (1) a scheme designed to defraud or to obtain money or property by false pretenses and (2) use of the mails or interstate wires (including interstate telephone calls) in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.
rule /f2d/976/1016-01 @9815..9991 | the complaint must, at minimum, describe the predicate acts with some specificity and “state the time, place, and content of the alleged communications perpetrating the fraud.”
rule /f-supp-2d/118/0392-01 @35413..35618 | It is fundamental that a Plaintiff who contends that the counterparty to a contract never intended to perform the terms of that contract may only prevail in an action for fraud under limited circumstances:
gloss 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.
element racketeering.extortion : or
name Hobbs Act or state-law extortion predicate (18 U.S.C. § 1951; § 1961(1)(A),(B))
text @148..169 | racketeering activity
gloss 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.
element racketeering.securities-fraud : or
name Fraud in the sale of securities predicate (§ 1961(1)(D))
text @148..169 | racketeering activity
rule /f2d/624/1118-01 @14879..15023 | This language is certainly broad enough on its face to include conspiracies involving securities and bankruptcy fraud and drug related offenses.
gloss 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.
element racketeering.bankruptcy-fraud : or
name Offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11 (§ 1961(1)(D))
text @148..169 | racketeering activity
rule /f2d/624/1118-01 @14879..15023 | This language is certainly broad enough on its face to include conspiracies involving securities and bankruptcy fraud and drug related offenses.
gloss Enumerated in § 1961(1)(D) as "any offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11".
element racketeering.conspiracy : or
name Conspiracy to commit a § 1961(1)(A) or (D) offense charged as a predicate act
text @148..169 | racketeering activity
rule /f2d/624/1118-01 @14351..14533 | we think that conspiracy can properly be charged as a predicate act of racketeering under RICO, at least when it involves any of the substantive offenses listed in section 1961(1)(D)
gloss 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.
element racketeering.obstruction : or
name Obstruction of justice / witness tampering predicate (18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512)
text @148..169 | racketeering activity
rule /f2d/976/1016-01 @14743..14939 | For starters, we know that telling a lie or committing perjury is not per se a RICO predicate act for one simple reason: it is not included among the list of predicate acts in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1).
gloss Perjury or discovery misconduct alone is not a predicate act unless it constitutes indictable obstruction of justice under § 1503 or witness tampering under § 1512.
element racketeering.stolen-property : or
name Interstate transportation of stolen or fraudulently obtained property (18 U.S.C. §§ 2314, 2315)
text @148..169 | racketeering activity
rule /f-supp/567/1146-01 @29850..30021 | plaintiff must allege that defendants transported or caused to transport with unlawful and fraudulent intent and with knowledge that the property was fraudulently obtained
gloss Enumerated in § 1961(1)(B).
element debt : or
name Collection of an unlawful debt (§ 1961(6)) — alternative to pattern of racketeering activity
text @1867..1894 | collection of unlawful debt
text @181..211 | collection of an unlawful debt
text @1349..1379 | collection of an unlawful debt
xref 18 U.S.C. § 1961(6) | "unlawful debt" means a debt (A) incurred or contracted in gambling activity which was in violation of the law ... or which is unenforceable under State or Federal law in whole or in part as to principal or interest because of the laws relating to usury, and (B) which was incurred in connection with the business of gambling ... or the business of lending money or a thing of value at a rate usurious under State or Federal law, where the usurious rate is at least twice the enforceable rate
rule /f-supp-3d/380/1031-01 @30068..30255 | § 1964(c) (creating a private right of action, in federal district court, for "[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter").
gloss 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.).
element investment : and
name Use or investment of racketeering income in an enterprise (§ 1962(a))
text @328..499 | 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,
rule /f-supp-2d/118/0392-01 @18192..18376 | 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.
gloss 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.
element acquisition : and
name Acquire or maintain interest in or control of an enterprise (§ 1962(b))
text @1380..1457 | to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of
rule /us/510/0249-01 @12588..12869 | Consequently, since the enterprise in subsection (c) is not being acquired, it need not have a property interest that can be acquired nor an economic motive for engaging in illegal activity; it need only be an association in fact that engages in a pattern of racketeering activity.
gloss 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.
element conspiracy : and
name Conspiracy to violate § 1962(a), (b), or (c) (§ 1962(d))
text @1936..2027 | to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section
rule /f-supp-3d/367/0664-01 @19235..19439 | To establish this offense, the Government must prove the following four elements: (i) an agreement, (ii) to conduct or participate, (iii) in an enterprise, (iv) through a pattern of racketeering activity.
rule /f3d/932/0242-01 @28535..28814 | To obtain a conviction under this statute, the government was required to prove "that an enterprise affecting interstate commerce existed; that each defendant knowingly and intentionally agreed with another person to conduct or participate in the affairs of the enterprise; and .
rule /f3d/929/0338-01 @24368..24514 | Section 1962(d) makes it unlawful to conspire to associate with and participate in the conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering.
rule /f-supp-2d/118/0392-01 @44002..44257 | Plaintiffs’ substantive claims under 18 U.S.C.1962(a) and (c) fail to state a cause of action, and have been dismissed. As a result, Plaintiffs’ claim under section 1962(d) sounding in conspiracy to violate sections 1962(a) and (c) must also be dismissed.
not-required An overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy (Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (1997))
not-required Agreement by the defendant to personally commit two predicate acts, so long as the defendant agreed that a conspirator would commit two predicate acts in conducting the enterprise (Salinas, 522 U.S. at 65)
gloss 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)).
element injury : and
name Civil RICO injury to business or property (18 U.S.C. § 1964(c))
text @33..68 | It shall be unlawful for any person
xref 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) | Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee
rule /us/604/593 @5466..5605 | 479, 497 (“[T]he compensable injury necessarily is the harm caused by predicate acts suffciently related to constitute a pattern”); Anza v.
rule /f-supp-3d/380/1031-01 @30068..30255 | § 1964(c) (creating a private right of action, in federal district court, for "[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter").
rule /f-supp-2d/118/0392-01 @11255..11456 | Because the Plaintiffs have not exhausted the bargained-for remedies, which they admit are available to them, they have not satisfied RICO’s requirement of alleging damages that are clear and definite.
rule /f-supp/567/1146-01 @32442..32594 | However, this judicially imposed requirement of a “racketeering enterprise injury” seems artificial and unwarranted by the language of the RICO statute.
not-required Distinct "racketeering injury" separate from the harm caused by the predicate acts (Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (1985))
not-required Absence of an antecedent personal injury, so long as the plaintiff seeks recovery for harm to "business or property" such as lost employment (Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, 604 U.S. 593 (2025))
gloss 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)).
element causation : and
name But-for and proximate causation ("by reason of", 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c))
text @33..68 | It shall be unlawful for any person
xref 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) | injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962
rule /f3d/920/0958-01 @11394..11541 | "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.
rule /f-supp-2d/926/1143-01 @29748..29945 | 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.
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))
gloss 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".
element x-aiding-abetting : or
name Civil aiding and abetting a RICO violation (rejected as a private cause of action)
text @250..326 | as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code
rule /f-supp-2d/118/0392-01 @41827..41948 | Courts in this District have long held that there is no private right of action for aiding and abetting a RICO violation.
gloss 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).
exception open-market-investment : exception
name De minimis open-market securities investment proviso (§ 1962(a))
text @603..1254 | A purchase of securities on the open market for purposes of investment, and without the intention of controlling or participating in the control of the issuer, or of assisting another to do so, shall not be unlawful under this subsection if the securities of the issuer held by the purchaser, the members of his immediate family, and his or their accomplices in any pattern or racketeering activity or the collection of an unlawful debt after such purchase do not amount in the aggregate to one percent of the outstanding securities of any one class, and do not confer, either in law or in fact, the power to elect one or more directors of the issuer.
rule /f-supp-2d/118/0392-01 @18192..18376 | 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.
gloss 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").
defense x-statute-of-limitations : defense
name Statute of limitations (4-year civil under Agency Holding; 5-year criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 3282)
text @33..68 | It shall be unlawful for any person
rule /f-supp-2d/926/1143-01 @29748..29945 | 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.
gloss 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)).
defense x-double-jeopardy : defense
name Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy bar against successive RICO conspiracy/substantive prosecutions
text @1936..2027 | to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section
rule /f3d/490/0575-01 @7799..7942 | These would be different conspiracies and hence different crimes even if the acts constituting the pattern of racketeering activity overlapped.
rule /f3d/490/0575-01 @8457..8600 | What the government may not do is “reprose-cute a defendant for the same offense whenever it obtains broader evidence of criminal culpability.”
gloss 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.
defense x-release-prior-class-settlement : defense
name Claim preclusion / release by prior class-action settlement
text @33..68 | It shall be unlawful for any person
rule /f-supp-2d/926/1143-01 @39641..39853 | courts have repeatedly found that maintenance of a separate lawsuit, which was initiated prior to the plaintiff receiving notice of the proposed settlement, does not serve as an opt-out from the class settlement.
gloss General affirmative defense litigated in civil RICO class actions.
defense x-parol-evidence-rule : defense
name Parol evidence rule raised to bar extrinsic evidence of fraudulent misrepresentations
text @33..68 | It shall be unlawful for any person
rule /f-supp-2d/926/1143-01 @41428..41566 | Generally, the parol evidence rule does not act to bar extrinsic evidence related to a fraud claim rather than a breach of contract claim.
gloss Rejected as a bar to mail/wire fraud RICO predicates sounding in tort rather than contract enforcement.