Racketeering Prosecutions
Racketeering generally refers to criminal activities carried out as part of an ongoing criminal organization or enterprise. It often involves illegal schemes like extortion, bribery, fraud, money laundering, drug trafficking, and other organized crime acts.
Legal Framework (Generally in the U.S. Context)
The primary law dealing with racketeering is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), enacted in 1970. It targets ongoing criminal enterprises by allowing prosecution of individuals or groups involved in a "pattern of racketeering activity."
Key Elements of Racketeering:
Existence of an Enterprise – a group or organization involved in criminal conduct.
Pattern of Racketeering Activity – at least two predicate offenses (listed crimes such as murder, bribery, fraud, drug trafficking) committed within 10 years.
Connection between the Enterprise and the Racketeering Activity – the criminal acts must further the interests of the enterprise.
Purpose of Racketeering Laws:
To dismantle organized crime syndicates.
To hold leaders accountable for crimes committed by subordinates.
To seize assets obtained illegally.
To deter long-term criminal conspiracies.
Landmark Case Laws on Racketeering Prosecutions
1. United States v. Turkette (1981)
Facts: The defendant was involved in an enterprise engaged in illegal gambling, loan sharking, and extortion.
Issue: Whether an “enterprise” under RICO can be purely criminal without a legitimate business.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that an enterprise can be either legitimate or illegitimate. The government need not prove that the enterprise had lawful purposes.
Significance: Expanded the scope of RICO to criminal enterprises that operate solely illegally, not just those mixing legal and illegal activities.
2. Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc. (1985)
Facts: Sedima alleged that Imrex was involved in a kickback scheme violating RICO.
Issue: The question was whether RICO applies only to criminal prosecutions or also to civil suits.
Judgment: The Court held that RICO’s civil remedies extend beyond criminal cases and can apply to private parties seeking damages.
Significance: Allowed private plaintiffs to use RICO statutes to sue for damages caused by racketeering, expanding RICO’s impact beyond just criminal prosecutions.
3. H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. (1989)
Facts: The plaintiff alleged a pattern of racketeering activity involving threats and fraud against a telephone company.
Issue: The interpretation of what constitutes a “pattern” of racketeering activity under RICO.
Judgment: The Court clarified that a “pattern” requires at least two predicate acts that are related and amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity.
Significance: Established the “continuity plus relationship” test for proving a racketeering pattern, raising the threshold for successful prosecution.
4. Reves v. Ernst & Young (1993)
Facts: The defendant, an accounting firm, was accused of participating in a criminal enterprise.
Issue: Whether a defendant who had no control over the enterprise could be held liable under RICO.
Judgment: The Court ruled that liability depends on whether the defendant participated in the conduct of the enterprise’s affairs.
Significance: Narrowed the scope of who could be liable under RICO, emphasizing active participation or control.
5. Boyle v. United States (2009)
Facts: Defendants were prosecuted for running a criminal organization involved in drug trafficking.
Issue: Whether a RICO enterprise requires a formal hierarchical structure.
Judgment: The Court ruled that an enterprise need not have a formal structure; any group of individuals associated in fact and functioning as a continuing unit can constitute an enterprise.
Significance: Made it easier for prosecutors to establish the existence of an enterprise in racketeering cases.
6. United States v. Dixon (1985)
Facts: Dixon was convicted under RICO for racketeering activity.
Issue: Interpretation of the scope of predicate offenses.
Judgment: The court held that predicate offenses must be related in purpose and nature, underscoring the requirement of relatedness in racketeering activities.
Significance: Reinforced the “pattern” requirement, ensuring racketeering charges target ongoing criminal behavior rather than isolated incidents.
7. Salinas v. United States (1997)
Facts: The defendant was alleged to have committed racketeering by aiding and abetting crimes within an enterprise.
Issue: Whether aiding and abetting can count as predicate acts under RICO.
Judgment: The Court held that aiding and abetting counts as racketeering activity under RICO.
Significance: Broadened potential liability in racketeering prosecutions to include secondary actors.
Summary
Racketeering prosecutions under RICO are powerful tools used to dismantle organized crime by targeting criminal enterprises as a whole. Courts have developed nuanced interpretations about what constitutes an enterprise, what qualifies as a pattern of racketeering, and who can be held liable. These cases collectively help define the boundaries of racketeering law and aid prosecutors in combating complex criminal networks.
RELATED Blog
0 comments