Sedima SPRL v. Imrex Co.
FACTS
Sedima and Imrex are partners in a venture… Sedima alleges that Imrex is inflating the bills and cheating them out of its proceeds by collecting on nonexistent expenses. This is a civil suit under RICO.
FACTS
Sedima and Imrex are partners in a venture… Sedima alleges that Imrex is inflating the bills and cheating them out of its proceeds by collecting on nonexistent expenses. This is a civil suit under RICO.
ISSUE
Whether 1964 can be construed to permit private actions against Defendants who have not been convicted of criminal RICO charges; and whether 1964 only allows recovery where there is a “racketeering injury.”
HOLDING
The court holds that the language does not indicate that a criminal prosecution needs to precede a civil RICO prosecution and given the lower burden of proof in a civil suit, it does not make sense. The court then determines that the statutory language does not limit the injury to only that caused by a “mobster”, rather the language is very broad…the court has consistently held that RICO is a very broad statute and reaches beyond organized crime, and reaches legitimate businesses as well, therefore there is not a requirement that the injury result from a “mobster”
Whether 1964 can be construed to permit private actions against Defendants who have not been convicted of criminal RICO charges; and whether 1964 only allows recovery where there is a “racketeering injury.”
HOLDING
The court holds that the language does not indicate that a criminal prosecution needs to precede a civil RICO prosecution and given the lower burden of proof in a civil suit, it does not make sense. The court then determines that the statutory language does not limit the injury to only that caused by a “mobster”, rather the language is very broad…the court has consistently held that RICO is a very broad statute and reaches beyond organized crime, and reaches legitimate businesses as well, therefore there is not a requirement that the injury result from a “mobster”
No comments:
Post a Comment