By Michael Beshears, professor of criminal justice at American Military University
The Racketeer-Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was enacted in 1970, as Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act. This legislation sought nothing less than the eradication of organized crime in the United States.
RICO opened the doors for prosecutors, allowing them to paint a more complete historical crime picture of the illegal activities of those charged under RICO. Prior to RICO, prosecutors were not allowed to present to a jury the defendant’s complete prior criminal or civil litigation history— even if it showed a pattern of criminal behavior. Prior to RICO, evidence or verdicts from previous criminal or civil litigation were simply not allowed to be presented for a jury’s consideration.
RICO changed all that and made it possible for testimony and evidence to be introduced to the court in order to show a pattern of organized or intentional illegal behavior or practices. Prosecutors are now able to present previous charges and verdict outcomes, even if the defendant had been acquitted of previous criminal charges. RICO disallows defense attorneys to shelter their client’s previous criminal or civil litigation history from the eyes of the court. This is especially true if the defendant’s criminal and civil litigation can prove that the defendant not only engaged in illegal acts, but that those acts formed a pattern.
The crafters of the RICO legislation were perhaps more ambitious than realistic. Nonetheless, because of their efforts RICO violators can be fined, imprisoned for up to 20 years (or both), and are also subject to mandatory asset forfeiture. These penalties allow the government to attack the economic roots of racketeering activities. The forfeiture provisions in RICO authorize the government to seek pre-indictment restraining orders and forfeitures of property transferred to third parties. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, section 1963 provides criminal penalties, and section 1964 provides for civil sanctions. Under section 1964 a private party who is injured in their business or property because of a RICO offense also can bring a civil RICO action to recover damages. The only stipulation is that each RICO claim must be founded on a criminal violation or act of racketeering.
Burden of Proof in RICO Cases
A civil RICO plaintiff is required to prove that the defendant not only engaged in acts, but they must also prove that these acts formed a pattern. The burden of proof for criminal RICO and civil RICO is no different than that of traditional criminal and civil proceeding. In civil RICO the plaintiff is compelled to prove their case by a preponderance of evidence. While criminal RICO requires the plaintiff to prove their case beyond the reasonable doubt test, the penalties do differ between civil and criminal RICO.
Civil penalties include a remedy of monetary damages exacting, three times the actual damages established at trial. This is in addition to the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and court costs. Another benefit, is that a civil RICO judgment may not be discharged with the filing of Chapter 13 Bankruptcy (18 U.S.C. § 1964). On the other hand, the penalties of criminal RICO include fines and possible incarceration (18 U.S.C. § 1963).
Pros and Cons of RICO for Law Enforcement
The advantages of the RICO legislation currently applied in law enforcement far exceed the disadvantages. However, the prosecution may prove problematic in some states where state prosecutors lack the motivation—due to their lack of time and/or limited resources—as compared to federal prosecutors who have more resources available to build a RICO case against offenders.
Other disadvantages center on how organized crime organizations have restructured their organizations and expanded their activities into the legitimate business world. This is an attempt to make it more difficult for law enforcement to trace racketeering activities. In addition, prosecutors charging defendants living outside of the country under RICO have experienced problems pertaining to international law, especially when they attempt to work with other countries to extradite an offender back to the United States to stand trial.
Interestingly, due to the liberal interpretation and application by the courts over the years, RICO has also been applied to social issues. Protest groups for example pertaining to anti-abortion, tobacco-related healthcare costs, divorce, and police misconduct. Some may submit frivolous lawsuits under RICO to merely acquire media attention. Just as some may not consider their own minor surgery “minor”, frivolous lawsuits may not be considered frivolous to the plaintiffs who file them. Nonetheless, it is clear that RICO has stood the test of time in the fight against organized crime.
About the Author: Michael L. Beshears has two B.S. degrees, one in psychology and another in criminal justice from Drury University. He also has two graduate degrees, a M.S. in criminology from Indiana State University and a M.A. in health services management from Webster University. Mike is a retired senior noncommissioned Officer in the U.S. Army. His 22-year career includes work with the Special Forces, as well as assisting other agencies in their performance of criminal investigations. He has an extensive background in emergency medicine and intensive care medical treatment, as a Special Forces medic, emergency medical technician and licensed practical nurse. As a lifelong learner, he is currently pursuing a doctoral degree in business with a concentration in criminal justice. He has three grown beautiful daughters Michele, Cora and Mollye. He resides with his wife Michelle and their son Hunter, and daughter Malia near Norfork and Bull Shoals Lakes in Clarkridge, Arkansas. Mike is currently an assistant Professor of criminal justice at American Military University & American Public University and is full-time faculty in the School of Public Service & Health. You can contact him at michael.beshears(at)mycampus.apus.edu.
References
Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-452, § 904(a), 84 Stat. 922, 947 (1970)
18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968
18 U.S.C. § 1963
18 U.S.C. § 1964
Comments are closed.