Under 18 USC 1962, there are four main violations which can be charged. The most common ground under which a RICO charge will be filed is through 1962(c). The section says it’s unlawful for the employee, or associate, of an enterprise to participate in a pattern of racketeering. In short, a RICO violation happens when a person employed or associated with a company/enterprise, where the activities of the company/enterprise participate directly or indirectly in the enterprise. These activities form a pattern of unlawful racketeering activities.
 

• Subsection 1962(a) – money laundering
• Subsection 1962(b) – loan sharking
• Subsection 1962(d) – conspiracy

If you’re convicted of a criminal offense under RICO, the maximum punishment for a single violation is a 20 year prison sentence, and a fine of $250,000 or 2x the ill-gotten gains. If certain offenses were involved, then the prison sentence can be changed to life in prison. RICO also permits the forfeiture of property gained due to the crime, or any interest in the enterprise.
[powerkit_toc title=”Table of Contents” depth=”6″ min_count=”2″ min_characters=”1000″ btn_hide=”false”]
Primarily enacted as a criminal statute, the Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations Act (RICO) includes a civil provision within Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. This section authorizes private treble-damage actions, which permits courts to award three time the amount of damages that a plaintiff requests.
For years since the passing of this law, the civil provision has rarely been used. However, claims are being filed to use this provision in contexts that are far removed from the original vision of addressing racketeering and organized crime.

What is RICO Law?

RICO law is the prosecution and defense of individuals who participate in organized crime activities. The law was passed by Congress in 1970 as a way to combat Mafia groups. Since that time, the legal system has expanded the law. Now, it is also used to go after other organizations from motorcycle gangs to corrupt police departments.
One thing that distinguishes RICO from other criminal or civil laws is the way it is applied. Rather than pursue an isolated criminal act, prosecutors look for a pattern of wrongdoing among individuals who are members of a criminal enterprise.
The collection of RICO laws include severe consequences when the economic activities of criminal organizations involve illegal activity, known as racketeering. Being convicted for a RICO violation includes heavy fines, financial restitution for victims and up to 20 years in prison. Conviction also calls for the dissolution of the organization.
The following crimes qualify as racketeering and are listed in federal and state statutes:
• Counterfeiting
• Drug trafficking
• Embezzlement
• Fraud
• Gambling
• Kidnapping
• Murder
• Theft
Anyone who is injured by a RICO violation, whether it is their business or property, may file a civil suit. They have the right to seek a compulsory award that is three times the damages, costs and attorney’s fees for the lawsuit.

Proving a Civil RICO Claim

To have a successful civil RICO claim, the plaintiff must be able to prove two thing:
1. The plaintiff suffered an injury to his or her business or property
2. The injury was closely caused because the defendant violated the RICO statute
Being a defendant in a civil RICO claim does not mean that you were also criminally convicted. However, the plaintiff must prove there was concrete financial loss.

Elements of a RICO Claim

Liability for a violation of RICO requires the individual to be involved in an organization that has a pattern of racketeering activity. To prove this, there are specific elements that apply: enterprise, predicate acts, a pattern of racketeering activity and continuity.
Enterprise
Determining the enterprise is the first step for a RICO case. The enterprise involved in a RICO claim can either be legitimate or illegitimate. Additionally, it may also be a loosely associated group or a corporate entity.
Other technicalities such as defendant/enterprise distinction and the essential connection to predicate acts must be part of the plaintiff’s strategy. A defense attorney will attempt to deconstruct an alleged enterprise that does not meet the terms of the technicalities.
Predicate Acts
Predicate acts is another element required in all RICO claims. These acts of racketeering activities are independently illegal crimes. Some of the offenses include in this group are:
• Bribery
• Extortion
• Kickback
• Mail and wire fraud
• Money laundering
• Illegal gambling
The plaintiff must define predicate acts while also making sure the actions occurred within the statute of limitation period. An attorney for the defendant must question whether certain predicates were sufficiently pled according to Rule 9(b) of the federal law’s Rules of Civil Procedure. In the past, Rico has been used to even go after companies that do payday loans and cash advances.
Pattern of Racketeering Activity
For a RICO claim to be successful, predicate acts of racketeering must form a pattern where more than two acts occurred. Generally, the alleged enterprise must have committed the predicate acts or proceeds from those acts were invested into the enterprise.
Continuity
Another element, continuity, means the activity is ongoing or has occurred over a substantial amount of time. There are several way for this to be established, including the fact that racketeering is the enterprise’s way of conducting business.

Why Spodek Law Group, PC is Right for Your Case

Not every lawyer can handle the intricacies of RICO law to build a successful defense for their client. At Spodek Law Group, PC, we know RICO law and we know what it takes to overcome a civil action. Contact our firm today so we can have the opportunity to help you.

Fifth Amendment and RICO Cases

The Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination presents a difficult dilemma for a civil RICO defendant. If he takes the Fifth, a presumption arises in the civil case that his testimony, if truthfully given, would be against his interests. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis declared, speaking for a unanimous court in United States ex. rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod,   263 U.S. 149, 153-54 (1923). “Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.” This follows the long ago established common law rule that suppression of evidence is an “admission by conduct” that the evidence would be unfavorable to the person responsible for its unavailability. There are a number of reasons that the law allows the finder of fact to draw a negative inference from a defendant’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment in a civil case.  Most importantly, allowing the defendant-witness to exclude incriminating information undermines the fact finder’s search for the truth.  If the privilege was allowed to be invoked without penalty in a civil case, the privilege places the private RICO plaintiff at a severe disadvantage.  This is especially true in RICO cases where civil liability arises from criminal conduct. The incantation of “I refuse to answer pursuant to my Fifth Amendment privilege. . .” precludes discovery and frustrates the truth-determining capacity of the litigation process.
On the other hand, if the defendant has potential liability for plaintiff’s claims and he doesn’t take the Fifth, he may end up giving the criminal prosecutor all the evidence he needs to send him to prison.
This dilemma faces every civil RICO defendant, if he has not already been criminally prosecuted. Every one familiar with the O.J. Simpson case knows that even an acquittal in a criminal case doesn’t mean the defendant is home free. The evidence developed in a criminal RICO case can make the civil RICO case much easier because the burden of proof in the civil case is typically by a preponderance of the evidence. The beyond a reasonable doubt burden simply doesn’t apply. In some states, including Idaho, fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, which although a heavier burden than the preponderance standard, it is much less than beyond a reasonable doubt.
On the other side of the coin, a successful civil RICO prosecution can lead to a criminal prosecution. My last plaintiff’s RICO case, which we settled very advantageously, led to a grand jury indictment for embezzlement and related crimes. The prosecutor was happy to have all of the forensic accounting evidence we developed in the civil case demonstrating that the defendant had embezzled nearly $1 million over a 15-year period.