Elements of RICO Conspiracy, Pattern
United States v. John-Baptiste, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2969 (3d Cir. Feb. 19, 2014):
To establish a conviction for a RICO conspiracy, the government must show: (1) that two or more persons agreed to conduct or to participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of an enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity; (2) that the defendant was a party to or member of that agreement; and (3) that the defendant joined the agreement or conspiracy knowing of its objective to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of an enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. United States v. Riccobene, 709 F.2d 214, 224 (3d Cir. 1983).
To establish a pattern of racketeering activity, the government must show that there was "'continuity plus relationship' among the predicate acts." United States v. Mark, No. 10-4075, 2012 WL 120092, at *3 (3d Cir. Jan. 17, 2012) (quoting Sedima S.P.R.I. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496 n.14 (1985) (quoting S. REP. NO. 91-617, at 158 (1969))). Racketeering acts are "related" if the acts had the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims or methods of commission. Barticheck v. Fidelity Union Bank/First Nat'l State, 832 F.2d 36, 39 (3d Cir.1987). "[S]poradic and separate criminal activities alone cannot give rise to a pattern for RICO purposes . . . ." Mark, 2012 WL 120092, at *3 (quoting United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 565 (3d Cir. 1991).
Share this article: