120 Puerto Rican NYPD Police Officers got busted dealing CocaCola and trading Inside information to Insurance Companies and Financial Institutions namely Blackstone and Lehman ....Event is Dubbed " RICO 105"
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly referred to as RICO Act or RICO) is a United States federal lawthat provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of actionfor acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Actof 1970 (Pub.L.91-452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted October 15, 1970). RICO is codified as Chapter 96 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968. While its intended use was to prosecute the Mafiaas well as others who were actively engaged in organized crime, its application has been more widespread.
It has been speculated that the name and acronym were selected in a sly reference to the movie Little Caesar, which featured a notorious gangster named Rico. The original drafter of the bill, G. Robert Blakey, refused to confirm or deny this.[1] G. Robert Blakeyremains an expert on RICO;[2] his former student Michael Goldsmithalso gained a reputation as one of the nation's leading RICO experts.[3]
Summary
Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimesand 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeeringcan be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeeringcount. 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 an enterprise to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect treble damages.
When the U.S. Attorneydecides to indict someone under RICO, he or she has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining orderor 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 corporationsoften 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.[4]
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 a "criminal enterprise." The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise. A civil RICO action, like many lawsuits based on federal law, can be filed in state or federal court.[5]
Both the federal and civil components allow for the recovery of treble damages(damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages).
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, "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 Leaguediplomas."[4]
[edit]RICO offenses
Under the law, racketeering activity means:
- Any violation of state statutes against gambling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, bribery, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act);
- Any act of bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene matter, obstruction of justice, slavery, racketeering, gambling, money laundering, commission of murder-for-hire, and several other offenses covered under the Federal criminal code (Title 18);
- Embezzlementof unionfunds;
- Bankruptcyfraud or securities fraud;
- Drug trafficking; long-term and elaborate drug networks can also be prosecuted using the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute;
- Money launderingand related offenses;
- Bringing in, aiding or assisting aliensin illegally entering the country (if the action was for financial gain);
- Acts of terrorism.
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. The U.S. Supreme Courthas instructed federal courts to follow the continuity-plus-relationship test in order to determine whether the facts of a specific case give rise to an established pattern. Predicate acts are related if they "have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events." (H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.) Continuity is both a closed and open ended concept, referring to either a closed period of conduct, or to past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition.
[edit]Where RICO laws might be applied
Although some of the RICO predicate acts are extortionand blackmail, one of the most successful applications of the RICO laws has been the ability to indict or sanction individuals for their behavior and actions committed against witnesses and victims in alleged retaliation or retribution for cooperating with federal law enforcement or intelligence agencies.
Violations of the RICO laws can be alleged civil lawsuit cases or for criminal charges. In these instances charges can be brought against individuals or corporations in retaliation for said individuals or corporations working with law enforcement. Further, charges can also be brought against individuals or corporations who have sued or filed criminal charges against a defendant.
Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) laws can be applied in an attempt to curb alleged abuses of the legal systemby individuals or corporations who utilize the courts as a weapon to retaliate against whistle blowers, victims, or to silence another's speech. RICO could be alleged if it can be shown that lawyers and/or their clients conspired and collaborated to concoct fictitious legal complaints solely in retribution and retaliation for themselves having been brought before the courts.
Although the RICO laws may cover drug trafficking crimes in addition to other more traditional RICO predicate acts such as extortion, blackmail, and racketeering, large-scale and organized drug networks are now commonly prosecuted under the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute, also known as the "Kingpin Statute". The CCE laws target only traffickers who are responsible for long-term and elaborate conspiracies; whereas the RICO law can be charged for a variety of organized criminal behavior.[6]
[edit]Famous cases
[edit]Hells Angels Motorcycle Club
In 1979, the United States federal government went after Sonny Bargerand several members and associates of the Oakland chapter of the Hells Angelsusing 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 juryon 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".[7][8]
[edit]Frank Tieri
On November 21, 1980, Genovese crime familyboss Frank "Funzi" Tieriwas the first Mafiaboss to be convicted under the RICO Act.[citation needed]
[edit]Catholic sex abuse cases
In some jurisdictions, RICO suits have been filed against Catholic dioceses, using racketeering laws to prosecute the higher-ups in the episcopacyfor 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 didn't amount to criminal racketeering. Certain lawyers and abuse advocates[who?] have openly wondered why a similar suit was not filed against archbishop Bernard Law, who escaped prosecution by going into exile in Vatican City.[9][10]
[edit]Key West PD
In June 1984, the Key West Police Departmentin Monroe County, Floridawas declared a criminal enterprise under the FederalRICO statutes after a lengthy United States Department of Justiceinvestigation. Several high-ranking officers of the department, including Deputy Police Chief Raymond Cassamayor, were arrested on federal charges of running a protection racketfor illegal cocainesmugglers.[11] At trial, a witness testified he routinely delivered bags of cocaineto the Deputy Chief's office at City Hall.[12]
[edit]Michael Milken
On March 29, 1989, financier Michael Milkenwas indicted on 98 counts of racketeering and fraud relating to an investigation into insider tradingand other offenses. Milken was accused of using a wide-ranging network of contacts to manipulate stock and bond prices. It was one of the first occasions that a RICO indictment was brought against an individual with no ties to organized crime. Milken pled guilty to six lesser offenses rather than face spending the rest of his life in prison.
On September 7, 1988, Milken's employer, Drexel Burnham Lambert, was also threatened with a RICO indictment under the legal doctrine that corporations are responsible for their employees' crimes. Drexel avoided RICO charges by pleading no contestto lesser felonies. While many sources say that Drexel pleaded guilty, in truth the firm only admitted it was "not in a position to dispute the allegations." If Drexel had been indicted, it would have had to post a performance bond of up to $1 billion to avoid having its assets frozen. This would have taken precedence over all of the firm's other obligations—including the loans that provided 96 percent of its capital. If the bond ever had to be paid, its shareholders would have been practically wiped out. Since banks will not extend credit to a firm indicted under RICO, an indictment would have likely put Drexel out of business.[13]
[edit]Major League Baseball
In 2002, the former minority owners of the Montreal Exposbaseball team filed charges under the RICO Act against Major League Baseballcommissioner Bud Seligand former Expos owner Jeffrey Loria, claiming that Selig and Loria deliberately conspired to devaluethe team for personal benefit in preparation for a move.[14] If found liable, Major League Baseball could have been found liable for up to $300 million in punitive damages. The case lasted for two years, successfully stalling the Expos' move to Washingtonor contraction during that time. It was eventually sent to arbitrationwhere the arbiters ruled in favor of Major League Baseball,[15] permitting the move to Washington to take place.
[edit]Pro-life activists
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 abortionclinics. 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.
[edit]Mohawk Industries
On April 26, 2006, the Supreme Courtheard Mohawk Industries, Inc.v. Williams, which concerned what sort of corporations fell under the scope of RICO. Mohawk Industries had allegedly hired illegal aliens, in violation of RICO. The court was asked to decide whether or not Mohawk Industries, along with recruiting agencies, constitutes an 'enterprise' that can be prosecuted under RICO, but in June of that year dismissed the case and remanded it to Court of Appeals.[16]
[edit]Latin Kings
On August 20, 2006 in Tampa, Floridamost 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 Firearmswere involved in the operation. Included in the arrest were Luis Hernandez, Celina Hernandez, Michael Rocca, Jessica Ramirez, Reinaldo Arroyo, Samual Alvarado, Omari Tolbert, Edwin DeLeon, and many others, totaling 39.
[edit]Gambino crime family
Also, in Tampa, on October 16, 2006, four members of the Gambino crime family(CapoRonald Trucchio, Terry Scaglione, Steven Catallono and associate Kevin McMahon) were tried under RICO statutes, found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.
[edit]Chicago Outfit
In 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice's Operation Family Secretsindicted15 Outfit members and associates under RICO predicates. As of 2009Joseph Lombardoand James Marcellohave been sentenced to life imprisonment.
[edit]Anthony Pellicano
Anthony Pellicano(born March 22, 1944, in Chicago, Illinois) is a former high-profile Los Angelesprivate investigatorwho recently served a sentence of three and a half years in federal prisonfor illegal possession of explosives, firearms and homemade grenades, and who was arrested on February 4, 2006, on unlawful wiretappingand racketeeringcharges.
[edit]Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella
A federal grand jury in the Middle District of Pennsylvania handed down a 48-count indictment against former Luzerne CountyCourt of Common Pleas Judges Michael Conahanand Mark Ciavarella.[17] The judges were charged with RICO after allegedly committing acts of Wire fraud, Mail Fraud, Tax Evasion, Money Laundering, and honest services fraud. The judges were accused of taking kickbacksfor housing juveniles, that the judges convicted for mostly petty crimes, at a private detention center. The incident was dubbed by many local and national newspapers as the "Kids for cash scandal".[18]
[edit]Scott W. Rothstein
Scott W. Rothsteinis a disbarred lawyer and the former managing shareholder, chairman, and chief executive officerof the now-defunct Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler law firm. He is accused of funding his philanthropy, political contributions, law firm salaries, and an extravagant lifestyle with a massive 1.2 billion dollar Ponzi scheme. On December 1, 2009. Rothstein turned himself in to federal authorities and was subsequently arrested on charges related to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).[19] Although his arraignment plea was not guilty, Rothstein cooperated with the Government and reversed his plea to guilty of five federal crimes on January 27, 2010. His sentencing is scheduled for June, 2010.[20] Bond was denied by U.S. Magistrate Judge Robin Rosenbaum, who ruled that due to his ability to forge documents, he was considered a flight risk.[21]
[edit]International equivalents to RICO
The US RICO legislation has other equivalents in the rest of the world. In spite of Interpolhaving a standardized definition of RICO-like crimes, the interpretation and national implementation in legislation (and enforcement) widely varies. Most nations do cooperate with the US on RICO enforcement only where their own related laws are specifically broken, but this is in line with the Interpol protocols for such matters.
By nation, alphabetically
Without other nations enforcing similar legislation to RICO many cross border RICO cases would not be possible. In the overall body of RICO cases that went to trial, at least 50% have had some non-US enforcement component to them. It must be noted that the offshoring of money away from the US finance system as part racketeering (and especially money laundering) is typically a major contributing factor to this.
However, other countries have laws that enable the government to seize property with unlawful origins. Mexico and Colombia both have specific laws that define the participation in criminal organizations as a separate crime (see Ley Federal contra la Delincuencia Organizada[22]), and separate laws that allow the seizure of goods related with these crimes. (see Ley de Extinción de Dominio[23]). This latter provides a specific chapter titled "International Cooperation", which instructs Mexican authorities to cooperate with foreign authorities with respect to organized crime assets within Mexico, and provides the framework by which Mexican authorities may politely request the cooperation of foreign authorities with respect to assets located outside of Mexico, in terms of any international instruments they may be party to.
Arguably, this may be construed as allowing the application of the RICO Act in Mexico, provided the relevant international agreements exist among Mexico and countries with RICO or RICO-equivalent provisions.