New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

RICO — Same Act Cannot Constitute Both Predicate Offense and Requisite Investment within § 1962(a), as Investment Injury Must Be Distinct from Pattern Injury

Download PDF

From Guy’s Mechanical Sys., Inc., v. FIA Card Servs., N.A., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14065 (3d Cir. June 22, 2009) (unpublished):

GMSI is a small company in western Pennsylvania that performs mechanical contracting services. Its principal owner, Wilbur Guy, has a credit card account with FIA that he mainly uses for business purchases. GMSI's bookkeeper, Lorene Sinclair, embezzled money by having Guy endorse GMSI checks intended to pay off his credit card account, altering the checks to increase the amount to be paid (for example, adding a "6" to a check for $137.50 to make it appear to be for $6137.50), and using the checks to overpay on a FIA credit card account held by her husband. Sinclair would then collect cash refunds of those overpayments from FIA, channeling GMSI money into her pockets. This scheme went on for over ten years, enabling Sinclair to embezzle hundreds of thousands of dollars. [GMSI sued FIA under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a).]

***

Section 1962(a) "was primarily directed at halting the investment of racketeering proceeds into legitimate businesses, including the practice of money laundering." Brittingham v. Mobil Corp., 943 F.2d 297, 303 (3d Cir. 1991). In order to avoid overlap with 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), which creates liability for any injury caused by a pattern of racketeering activity, the Third Circuit has held that a claim under § 1962(a) "must allege an injury resulting from the investment of racketeering income distinct from an injury caused by the predicate [racketeering] acts themselves." Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp., 4 F.3d 1153, 1188 (3d Cir. 1993).

GMSI alleges in its suit that FIA participated in a predicate racketeering activity, money laundering, by providing refunds to Sinclair for more than ten years despite their suspicious nature. GMSI asserts that this behavior caused it direct loss when FIA deposited the fraudulent checks and invested its proceeds from those checks (the amount not refunded to Sinclair) in its business operations. FIA moved to dismiss GMSI's claims, prompting the District Court to raise the question of whether GMSI had adequately pled an "investment injury" separate from the predicate money laundering offense. The District Court ultimately decided that GMSI had failed to do so, and rejected GMSI's attempt to amend its complaint, concluding that the proposed amendments would not cure the pleading deficiency. GMSI timely appealed the District Court's ruling.

***

The flaw in GMSI's reasoning is that it does not identify any injury caused specifically by the use or investment of racketeering proceeds, as required under our interpretation of § 1962(a). Appellant makes every effort to cast FIA's cashing of GMSI checks as an investment of racketeering income, independent from the alleged money laundering that produced that income, that injured GMSI. However, it was in fact FIA's conversion of the checks provided by Sinclair into cash that provided it with its purported racketeering proceeds in the first place. The cashing of the checks cannot simultaneously have constituted both the step by which FIA realized its proceeds from Sinclair's embezzlement and the subsequent investment of those proceeds in a way that proximately caused an injury to GMSI. If that one discrete act were counted as both the production of racketeering income and the use of that income, then "the distinction between sections 1962(a) and 1962(c) would be blurred" in a way that undermines Congress's intent in creating the two separate provisions. Glessner v. Kenny, 952 F.2d 702, 709 (3d Cir. 1991). Therefore, as the District Court correctly reasoned, FIA's cashing of the checks may only be considered a part of the predicate racketeering offense of money laundering. Such predicate offenses are punishable under § 1962(c), not § 1962(a). Lightning Lube, 4 F.3d at 1189.

GMSI does not attempt to argue that it suffered any other independent injury from FIA's investment or use of the checks. Nor would it be successful if it did so. As we have made clear, the mere use of racketeering proceeds to support a business that continues to engage in the racketeering activities that produced those profits does not qualify as an investment injury for purposes of a § 1962(a) claim. See Brittingham v. Mobil Corp., 943 F.2d 297, 303-05 (3d Cir. 1991) (finding allegation that corporation's proceeds from racketeering activity enabled it to continue its fraudulent activities insufficient to support a claim under § 1962(a)). GMSI therefore cannot successfully plead a § 1962(a) claim. The District Court was correct both in dismissing the complaint and denying GMSI's motion to amend.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Threatening Defendant and Magistrate Judge — No First Amendment Right to Threaten Violence

RICO: Domestic Injury — Delivery of Fraudulently Non-Conforming Goods FOB Los Angeles for Shipment to China Means Injury Arose Domestically When Purchaser Took Title —Other Relevant Factors Include That The Non-Conforming Goods Were Sourced and Made in the U.S. and The Racketeering Activity (Mail/Wire Fraud) Occurred in, and Was Directed from, the United States — Irrelevant to Domestic Injury Inquiry Whether Property Is Tangible or Intangible — 7th Circuit’s “Injury-Felt” Test of Domestic Injury Rejected by Supreme Court — RICO Standing Requires Concrete Financial Loss, Not Merely Injury to Valuable Intangible Property Interest (9th Circuit)

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice