Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Rethinking Civil Rico: The Vexing Problem Of Causation In Fraud-Based Claims Under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(C), Randy D. Gordon
Rethinking Civil Rico: The Vexing Problem Of Causation In Fraud-Based Claims Under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(C), Randy D. Gordon
Randy D. Gordon
To recover in a private action, the three-part structure of RICO demands proof of particularized crimes at two levels and civil standing to sue for those crimes. The interpretation and application of the standing requirement — which arises from the statute’s mandate that compensable injuries be caused “by reason of” acts of racketeering — have bedeviled courts and litigants for decades. Recent developments in class action law have exacerbated the problem. As more and more courts have rendered it nearly impossible to certify classes asserting state-law claims, class plaintiffs have turned to uniform federal laws like RICO. But civil RICO …
Crimes That Count Twice: A Reexamination Of Rico's Nexus Requirements Under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(C) And 1964(C), Randy D. Gordon
Crimes That Count Twice: A Reexamination Of Rico's Nexus Requirements Under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(C) And 1964(C), Randy D. Gordon
Randy D. Gordon
The complicated structure of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act makes it difficult to determine when “ordinary” crimes spill over into RICO violations. This Article examines and synthesizes various “nexus” requirements that courts have devised to separate non-RICO crimes from full-blown RICO violations. The Article concludes with a discussion of the United States Supreme Court’s recent holding in Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corporation, 126 S. Ct. 1991 (2006), which sharply limits certain types of civil RICO claims.
Clarity And Confusion: Rico's Recent Trips To The United States Supreme Court, Randy D. Gordon
Clarity And Confusion: Rico's Recent Trips To The United States Supreme Court, Randy D. Gordon
Randy D. Gordon
The complicated structure of the Racketeer and Corrupt Organization Act has bedeviled courts courts and litigants since its adoption four decades ago. Two questions have recurred with some frequency. First, is victim reliance an element of a civil RICO claim predicated on allegations of fraud? Second, what is the difference between an illegal association-in-fact and an ordinary civil conspiracy? In a series of three recent cases, the United States Supreme Court brought much needed clarity to the first question. But in another recent case, the Court upended decades of circuit-court precedent holding that an actionable association-in-fact must be embody a …