Talk:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

Where is U.S. vs. Philip Morris et al.?

The cigarette industry probably is the biggest industry ever held liable under RICO, as I understand it as no native speaker. You find it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Philip_Morris and here: https://publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/tobacco-control/tobacco-control-litigation/united-states-v-philip-morris-doj-lawsuit "United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.[1] was a case in which the United States District Court for the District of Columbia held several major tobacco companies liable for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act [2] by engaging in numerous acts of fraud to further a conspiracy to deceive the American public about nicotine addiction and the health effects of cigarettes and environmental tobacco smoke. Judge Gladys Kessler found that the evidence overwhelmingly established that the companies violated RICO by coordinating their public relations, research, and marketing efforts in order to advance their scheme to defraud by denying the adverse health effects of smoking, denying the addictiveness of nicotine, denying their manipulation of the nicotine content of cigarettes, and denying that their marketing targeted youth as new smokers. The companies also suppressed and destroyed information related to the dangers of smoking in order to maximize their profits and enhance the market for cigarettes."

Is there any reason except the companies' interest that would explain why this case is missing? Wikipedia won't be an independent and universal Encyclopedia, if this case is missing, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E3:8F26:F8B8:B848:3E7E:F26D:852 (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

What is a "pro life" activist?

Pro life? Who's not pro life? This is propaganda rhetoric, labeling the other side "anti life". The correct term would be anti abortion activists. This would be like resorting to calling "pro life" activists "womens rights haters" (which doesn't either make sense). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.218.162 (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Been discussed at length. We use the names that the movements give themselves. ✏✎✍✌✉✈✇✆✃✄Ⓠ‽ (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur. 95.91.248.64 (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I edited to more fully explain the content of that opinion which--not sure if this will eliminate the dispute--makes clear that the group in question titled themselves the Pro-Life Action Network. Also, clarified that the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The prior entry said the opposite...not sure if somebody was screwing around with the content or just misread the case, but it's pretty clearly spelled out. Whether the group can be considered a RICO enterprise is a completely different question from whether they have violated RICO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.78.82 (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

International equivalents to RICO

In Italy we have:

Associazione di tipo mafioso

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associazione_di_tipo_mafioso

I hope I helped U

Thank You

Gianni — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.3.194.75 (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Is the Russia investigation a RICO investigation?

Just exactly what is an "enterprise CI [counterintelligence] investigation"? Would it be proper to call the Russia investigation a RICO investigation?

From Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump):

In April 2018, the House Intelligence Committee, then in Republican control, released a final report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, which stated that the House Intelligence Committee found that "in late July 2016, the FBI opened an enterprise CI [counterintelligence] investigation into the Trump campaign following the receipt of derogatory information about foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos." Bold added.

From "THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S GUIDELINES ON GENERAL CRIMES, RACKETEERING ENTERPRISE AND DOMESTIC SECURITY/TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS":

A. Racketeering Enterprise Investigations

This section focuses on investigations of organized crime. It is concerned with investigation of entire enterprises, rather than individual participants in specific criminal acts, and authorizes investigations to determine the structure and scope of the enterprise as well as the relationship of the members. Except as specified below, this authority may be exercised only when the activity engaged in by the racketeering enterprise involves violence, extortion, narcotics, or systematic public corruption.

1. Definitions

Racketeering activity is any offense, including the violation of state law, encompassed by the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1961(1). Bold added.

I have bolded the part that seems to apply, as there has been no indication that the Trump campaign has been involved in "violence, extortion, narcotics", whereas "systematic public corruption" would seem to fit.

Does anyone know more about this? I'm not interested in including any OR anywhere, so am seeking help from others who know more and who might know of other relevant sources which can be used. Please ping me. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Which 35 crimes, exactly?

I've spent the past hour trying to find a complete list of the 35 offenses under the RICO statute, but I can't find them anywhere online. Even the RICO statute doesn't specify the majority of them, it refers you to other statutes.

I'd try to put together a list myself, but I'm no lawyer and I don't want to go to all that work if it's just going to get snipped because I got something wrong. 2001:56A:7665:1800:D839:ECC1:79A7:D825 (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Which of the 29 or 33 states have RICO statutes?

I have no idea which citation is up-to-date (the current one or the one listed below), but that said I'll be getting Introduction: RICO State by State: A Guide to Litigation Under the State Racketeering Statutes, Second Edition via Interlibrary Loan (ILL).

https://www.findlaw.com/state/criminal-laws/racketeering.html

kencf0618 (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

obviously Wikipedia is not going to cite American imperialism

there is no topic on the use of American lawfare against third world countries that challenge the empire's hegemony. 45.225.17.168 (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Shein RICO Lawsuit

This is new and ongoing, they haven't been tried yet let alone convicted but it might be worth a mention. Also I'm new here so sorry for any wrong formatting.

A lawsuit was filed in California federal court on behalf of three designers who had their products faithfully copied and sold by Shein [source]

From the lawsuit:

"If Shein’s intellectual property theft and blame avoidance is facilitated by its byzantine shell game of a corporate structure, and the willingness of its control group to commit systemic and repeated infringements, as alleged in detail below, there is one legal regime that might provide the remedies necessary to combat such well-organized wrongs distributed across an array of related actors and entities: the civil prong of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (civil “RICO”), which was designed to address the misconduct of culpable individual cogs in an larger enterprise."

"Shein’s misconduct is committed not by a single entity, but by a de-facto association of entities. And just as intended by Congress, the same decentralization that facilitates Shein’s criminal infringement and other racketeering activity, renders individual components of the enterprise, such as Defendants, liable under civil RICO."

"Further, Shein has grown rich by committing individual infringements over and over again, as part of a long and continuous pattern of racketeering, which shows no sign of abating. There is no indication that Shein intends to slow down any time soon—and indeed their corporate literature speaks only of projected exponential growth. It is not an exaggeration to suggest that Shein’s pattern of misconduct involves commission of new copyright and trademark infringements every day." Vinistton (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Donald Trump

RICO charge by Georgia: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/14/us/trump-georgia-rico-charges.html John a s (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose small time criminal Donald Trump isn't sufficiently important to go under "Famous Cases"?  ;-) 95.91.248.64 (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned this case is being heard under Georgia law, not as a Federal case, so why is this section even here in this article? There is a separate Georgia RICO article, which is surely where this section/paragraph belongs. Perhaps it may warrant a brief mention here with a wikilink to the correct Georgia RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act article

95.145.203.87 (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Legal Research

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 17 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wellesemery (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Coffee4564, Saints420002.

— Assignment last updated by User78632 (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)