Civil RICO Actions This research paper discusses the st

Although it appears that Congress' original intent was to limit Civil RICO actions to those relating to the activities of organized crime, they have since the early 1980s been applied much more broadly by the plaintiffs' bar to nearly any kind of civil fraud or broadscale concerted criminal activities. Some federal and state courts have attempted to restrict the scope of Civil RICO actions by imposing on them various procedural and substantive limitations. However, the United States Supreme Court has given in a number of instances broader and more permissive interpretations concerning the scope of Civil Rico than have lower courts and at other times has failed to offer adequate guidance. As a result, patterns of civil litigation have become prevalent which lend themselves to abuse, adding unnecessary cost, uncertainty and complexity to the civil justice system and for American society generally.

Congress enacted RICO to help combat organized crime and in particular to protect legitimate businesses from being infiltrated by organized crime. It generally prohibits anyone from acquiring an interest in or exercising control over any 'enterpri

. . .
Sedima, supra, 473 U.S. 479 (1985), the Supreme Court held that the compensable injury required for standing purposes was that caused by the predicate acts [alone]. According to Allison et al (1998, Spring), Sedima also struck down another Second Circuit standing restriction, namely, that the civil plaintiff must prove that the defendant had been criminally convicted of having been engaged in RICO racketeering activities. Proof in a Civil RICO action by the preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. Allison et al. said that another Supreme Court case held that Civil RICO can apply not only to racketeering activities motivated by economic motivations, and therefore, "purely political, non-economic criminal activity may fall within the ambit of RICO" (p. 1154). This line of reasoning has been used to uphold the applicability of RICO to the activities of abortion protesters. Northeast Women's Center v. McMonagle (McMonagle IV), 868 F.2d 1342. Allison et al. reported that various federal decisions have placed standing limitations on Civil Rico actions. They said that "Civil RICO is not available to compensate the economic consequences of personal injuries sustained as a result of a RICO predicate act" (Pilkington v. United Airlin
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Civil RICO, Civil Rico, Supreme Court, Supreme Court's, Telephone Co, RICO RICO, RICO Congress, civil rico, Smith Corp, Bar Association, McMonagle IV, supreme court, statute limitations, organized crime, civil litigation, court held, federal courts, rico actions, civil rico actions, supreme court held, corrupt organizations, influenced corrupt, racketeer influenced corrupt, influenced corrupt organizations, allison et al,
Approximate Word count = 1970
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Civil RICO Actions This research paper discusses the st