Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

RICO or the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act is a United States law which provides for extended penalties for criminal acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. It was enacted as Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970.

It has been speculated that the name and acronym were selected in a sly reference to the movie Little Caesar, which featured a notorious gangster named "Rico."

Where RICO laws might be applied

Some of the RICO predicate acts are extortion and blackmail however one of the most successful applications of the RICO laws has been the ability to indict or sanction individuals for their behavior and actions committed against witnesses and victims in alleged retaliation or retribution for cooperating with law enforcement or intelligence agencies.

The RICO laws can possibly be alleged in cases where civil lawsuits or criminal charges are brought against individuals or corporations in retaliation for said individuals or corporations working with law enforcement, or against individuals or corporations who have sued or filed criminal charges against a defendant.

Anti-SLAPP laws can possibly be applied in an attempt to curb alleged abuses of the legal system by individuals who utilize the courts as a weapon to retaliate against whistle blowers, victims, or to silence another's speech however RICO could conceivably be alleged if it can be shown that lawyers and/or their clients conspired and collaborated to concoct fictitious legal complaints solely in retribution and retaliation for themselves having been brought before the courts.

Possible example of RICO

One example of RICO can be a case where a College Professor or other scientific organization performs research on a company's claims and finds the company's claims to be unfounded and verging on the criminal. If the company in question threatens to sue the individual for libel, slander, and/or defamation knowing that their claims being exposed are false and/or fraudulent and that the Professor's summations and commentary are demonstrably true, it's possible that the threats or full-on lawsuit which attempts to silence the individual would befall RICO predicates. An attorney would be employed to judge whether RICO applies and, of course, a Judge would make the final decision in a court of law.

An example reference of failed RICO allegations

is a company that wrongfully alleged RICO against a victim who was engaged in a long-standing civil case against Scientology. The RICO claim was dismissed for obvious reasons (lack of any evidence to support the RICO claims. Wollersheim, however, eventually won his civil lawsuit for many millions of dollars.) See: -- for further commentary and coverage of the use of fictitious RICO.

An example of a failed RICO resulting in sanctions

On May 2, 1994, Helena Kobrin, counsel for the Church of Scientology, was ordered to pay sanctions in the total sum of $17,775 for filing a frivolous complaint in federal court. The case is entitled Religious Technology Center, Inc. v. Frank Gerbode, and is reported in the RICO Business Disputes Guide published by Commerce Clearing House, Inc. The citation is Religious Technology Center, Inc. v. Frank Gerbode, [Current Transfer Binder] RICO Bus. Disp. Guide (CCH) par. 8595 (C.D. Cal. May 2, 1994). The case was decided by Judge A. Wallace Tashima of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case number is CV 93-2226 AWT. Ms. Kobrin prepared and filed an amended complaint on behalf of plaintiffs Religious Technology Center and the Church of Scientology International against defendants David Mayo and the Church of New Civilization. Id. at 15,790. The amended complaint alleged that defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO). Id. The Court dismissed the action. Id. The defendants then filed a motion for sanctions against, among others, Helena Kobrin and her firm, Bowles & Moxon. Id. The Court granted the motion after observing:

"This RICO complaint does not pass muster under Rule 11(b)(2) that the claims be 'warranted by existing law.' Neither is any 'nonfrivolous argument' made 'for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law' in support of plaintiffs' RICO theory. * * * The claims are frivolous. Alleging the RICO claims in the amended complaint was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances."

Id. at 15,792 (footnotes omitted). The Court concluded as follows:

"IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendants shall recover from Attorney Helena K. Kobrin and the law firm of Bowles & Moxon, jointly and severally, monetary sanctions under Rule 11 in the sum of $8,887.50, as partial reimbursement for attorneys' fees incurred in defending against the amended complaint.

2. In addition, Attorney Helena K. Kobrin and the law firm of Bowles & Moxon, jointly and severally, shall pay to the Clerk of the Court a monetary penalty in the sum of $8,887.50, as a further sanction."

Id. at 15,794. It is unknown whether Ms. Kobrin, or any other party, filed an appeal from the District Court's order imposing sanctions. If such an appeal was filed, it is unknown whether the appeal is still pending, or what the result was if it has been decided. The District Court's order imposing sanctions may not be final.

Disclaimer

Nothing on this site should be considered legal advice, nor should it be relied upon as factually acurate. The actual statutes and court decisions involved are the only sources certain to contain accurate information. If you are involved in legal action or require legal advice, you should consult a lawyer, not an encyclopedia. Please see the legal disclaimer for more information.