RICO Enterprises and Associations in Fact

This blog entry continues my discussion of the circumstances under which you may procede with a civil RICO suit. As discussed in prior entries, civil RICO provides for, among other things, the recovery of attorney fees.

Where the alleged RICO enterprise is not a legal entity, but an association-in-fact, plaintiff must show: (1) that there exists or existed an organization, whether formal or informal; (2) that the various associates of the organization function or functioned as a continuing unit; and (3) that the organization has or had an existence separate and apart from the pattern of racketeering activity. Such an enterprise need not have a chain of command. It may make its decisions on an ad hoc basis, by any number of methods, including general consensus. The requirement that the organization (i.e. the RICO enterprise) have an existence apart from the pattern of racketeering activity simply means that the alleged enterprise must: (1) be more than an association of individuals conducting the normal business functions of a corporation; and (2) have some level of existence beyond what is necessary to engage in the alleged acts of racketeering. However, it is not necessary that the enterprise have any function wholly unrelated to the racketeering activity.

Because the rules that require pleading the organization’s identity, its mode of functioning, and its existence apart from the racketeering activity appear more onerous than they are, defendants often attack the adequacy of plaintiff’s pleadings on those specific requirements. However, where a true association-in-fact exists, there is usually a basis for at least tentatively asserting enough about how it operates to get past this defense. Of course, if the plaintiff does not have sufficient facts to allege these requirements, defendant’s counsel should waste no time moving for a quick dismissal.

For authorities supporting the above discussion, see e.g., Boyle v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 2237, 2245 (2009); United States v. Turkette 452 U.S. 576, 583 (1981); United States v. Console, 13 F.3d 641, 651-651 (3rd Cir. 1993).

The information contained in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such. For legal advice or for answers to specific questions, please contact the blog's author.