RICO Act
Bret D. Baker
CJ105 Criminal Law
Park University
Professor William Bower

RICO Act
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them, closing a loophole that allowed someone who told a man to murder to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually commit the crime personally.
RICO was enacted by the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 was signed into law by Richard M. Nixon. While its original use in the 1970s was to prosecute the Mafia as well as others who were actively engaged in organized crime, its later application has been more widespread and allowed for broader prosecution of individuals associated with “organized” crime.
RICO crimes are typically Conspiracy crimes and Conspiracy is an inchoate crime. It does not require the commission of the substantive offense that is the object of the conspiracy. As an inchoate crime, conspiracy fixes the point of legal intervention at the time of agreement to commit a crime, and thus reaches further back into preparatory conduct than attempt. (LexisNexis, 2013).
Under RICO, a person who has committed "at least two acts of racketeering activity" drawn from a list of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period, if such acts are related in one of four specified ways to an "enterprise," can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such racketeers to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages.
When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he or she has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to temporarily seize a defendant's assets and prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This provision was placed in the law because the owners of Mafia-related shell corporations often absconded with the assets. An injunction and/or performance bond ensures that there is something to seize in the event of a guilty verdict.
In many cases, the threat of a RICO indictment can force defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges, in part because the seizure of assets would make it difficult to pay a defense attorney. Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court, as it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts.
There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A "person damaged in his business or property" can sue one or more "racketeers". The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendants are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendants and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendants and the enterprise: 1. either the defendants invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise, 2. or the defendants acquired or maintained an interest in, or control over, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity; or the defendants conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity; or the defendants conspired to do one of the above.
Although its primary intent was to deal with organized crime, Blakey said that Congress never intended it to merely apply to the Mob. He once told Time Magazine, "We don't want one set of rules for people whose collars are blue or whose names end in vowels, and another set for those whose collars are white and have Ivy League diplomas."
Several famous historical cases have been filed and won using RICO against “organizations” and individuals. Many cases have also been lost. Below are several examples of historical cases.
In 1979, the United States federal government went after Sonny Barger and several members and associates of the Oakland charter of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club using RICO. In United States v. Barger, the prosecution team attempted to demonstrate a pattern of behavior to convict Barger and other members of the club of RICO offenses related to guns and illegal drugs. The jury acquitted Barger on the RICO charges with a hung jury on the predicate acts: "There was no proof it was part of club policy, and as much as they tried, the government could not come up with any incriminating minutes from any of our meetings mentioning drugs and guns."
Even cases against the church have been filed in Catholic sex abuse cases. In some jurisdictions, RICO suits have been filed against Catholic dioceses, using racketeering laws to prosecute the highers-up in the episcopacy for abuses committed by those under their authority. A Cleveland grand jury cleared two bishops of racketeering charges, finding that their mishandling of sex abuse claims did not amount to criminal racketeering. Certain lawyers and abuse advocates who have openly wondered why a similar suit was not filed against archbishop Bernard Law prior to his getting reassigned to Vatican City.
There have even been cases filed against police departments and individuals within them usinf the police departments as those “organizations”. In June 1984, the Key West Police Department located in the County of Monroe, Florida, was declared a criminal enterprise under the federal RICO statutes after a lengthy United States Department of Justice investigation. Several high-ranking officers of the department, including Deputy Police Chief Raymond Cassamayor, were arrested on federal charges of running a protection racket for illegal cocaine smugglers. At trial, a witness testified he routinely delivered bags of cocaine to the Deputy Chief's office at City Hall. Another landmark case against a police department was filed against the Los Angeles Police Department in April, 2000, Federal judge William J. Rea in Los Angeles, ruling in one Rampart Scandal case, said that the plaintiffs could pursue RICO claims against the LAPD, an unprecedented finding. The idea that a police organization could be characterized as a racketeering enterprise shook up City Hall and further damaged the already tarnished image of the LAPD. However, in July, 2001, U.S. District Judge Gary A. Feess said that the plaintiffs do not have standing to sue the LAPD under RICO because they are alleging personal injuries rather than economic or property damage.
Major League Baseball has even been a focus. In 2002, the former minority owners of the Montreal Expos baseball team filed charges under the RICO Act against Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig and former Expos owner Jeffrey Loria, claiming that Selig and Loria deliberately conspired to devalue the team for personal benefit in preparation for a move. If found liable, Major League Baseball could have been responsible for up to $300 million in punitive damages. The case lasted two years, successfully stalling the Expos' move to Washington or contraction during that time. It was eventually sent to arbitration where the arbiters ruled in favor of Major League Baseball, permitting the move to Washington to take place.
Pro-life activists have several times been targeted by RICO. RICO laws were successfully cited in NOW v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 114 S. Ct. 798, 127 L.Ed. 2d 99 (1994), a suit in which certain parties, including the National Organization for Women, sought damages and an injunction against pro-life activists who physically block access to abortion clinics. The Court held that a RICO enterprise does not need an economic motive, and that the Pro-Life Action Network could therefore qualify as a RICO enterprise. The Court remanded for consideration of whether PLAN committed the requisite acts in a pattern of racketeering activity.
Street gangs have also been a specific target of RICO enforcement. On August 20, 2006, in Tampa, Florida, most of the state leadership members of the street gang, the Latin Kings, were arrested in connection with RICO conspiracy charges to engage in racketeering and currently await trial. The operation, called "Down Crown", targeted statewide leadership of the Latin Kings. The raid occurred at the Caribbean American Club. Along with Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office, Tampa Police Department, the State Attorney’s Office, the FBI, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms were involved in the operation. Included in the arrest were leader Gilberto Santana from Brooklyn NY, Captain Luis Hernandez from Miami FL, Affiliate Celina Hernandez, Affiliate Michael Rocca, Affiliate Jessica Ramirez, Affiliate Reinaldo Arroyo, Affiliate Samual Alvarado, Omari Tolbert, Edwin DeLeon, and many others, totaling 39. (Wikipedia, 2013).
RICO has stemmed from common law instances that drive society to desire to punish those they know are involved with illegal and detrimental activity that they may not have direct connection with but everyone knows through reputation or word of mouth that their involvement is responsible for the activities being performed. RICO has allowed government and law enforcement to prosecute these people that in the past may have been able to “get away with murder” since they were not directly connected. Many times RICO has been abused but as a whole has had positive outcome. RICO, if used only as designed, is and can be an Act that protects society as a whole but at times should be more strictly regulated to prevent law enforcement from using it as a blanket to go after “undesirables” they simply don’t like but haven’t found a way to deal with legally. Many laws in our society fall under this same reason such as the Patriot Act. If only used as designed, are good laws with good reason but when allowed to be used as a mass blanket to go after persons that can’t otherwise be proved to be “bad”, only become laws that make our society more closely related to Communism.

References
Cal Pen Code § 182 (2013). Retrieved from http://www.lexisnexis.com.pegleg.park.edu/lnacui2api/results/docview/docview.do?docL inkInd=true&risb=21_T18593911932&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=
1&resultsUrlKey=29_T18593911936&cisb=22_T18593911935&treeMax=true&treeWid
th=0&csi=4867&docNo=1
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Wikipedia (2013). Retrieved from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act