What is the difference between racketeering and conspiracy to commit any of the crimes covered under racketeering laws?
Quoting Bricker from here:
So, why not just charge people involved in such an enterprise with conspiracy to commit extortion, or conspiracy to loanshark? Is it because conspiracy to commit those crimes is actually not a crime?
Follow the money.
There are numerous anti-racketeering laws that allow law enforcement agencies to seize assets of people who are convicted (or is some cases accused) of racketeering. This can include assets which had nothing to do with any other crimes that the defendant was accused of.
So in other words, if a law enforcement agency gets a conviction of someone for dealing drugs they can send him to prison. If they convict that same person of racketeering, they can seize his house, car, business, etc.
IIRC, racketeering was a term that was invented by the FBI in order to create a blanket term for what the mob did. I guess conspiracy seemed too detached, they needed a term/law that made people “joint and severally liable” for their actions.
People with much more background than I will be able to address the specifics in finer detail, but I’m sure that the final analysis will state that this law made it easier to convict mobsters. That is, the verbiage of the law gave the feds an advantage both legally, as well as by singling out individuals as racketeers rather than co-conspirators.
That’s my 2 cents.
IANAL, but until the real experts show up, I thought this example might clarify:
If KarlGauss and I get together and plan bribing Lynn Bodoni (presumably with chocolate) to “look the other way” while we break board rules, then that is a conspiracy. One time, short-term, single purpose. Even though there are multiple crimes (Conspiracy and bribery).
If Karl, dnooman, Little Nemo (who has the perfect screenname for this illustration, BTW) and I form a group, and we not only bribe Lynn, but also run a protection racket targeting newbies, and blackmail Dex with photos from the last Dopefest, and threaten Ed Zotti, and intimidate jdavis into buying all his hamsters from our “good friend”, and do other such illegal activities on an continuing basis, then we have an RICO charge hanging over us. The illegal activities are not only organized, but ongoing, for long term, and not directed to accomplish a single goal.
Historically, RICO was the tool that allowed the Feds to break the power of La Costra Nostra. RICO has been broadened out of its original intent, but that is a mater for GD. It was rooted in the reality that there are ongoing, organized enterprises that engage in crime as a business proposition. Furthermore, that these enterprises are organized in such a way that Person X may not have committed any one murder himself, but they are part of a chain that created the reason and sanctioned that murder. It was a law that made prosecuting Person X much easier than establishing all the connections between the murderer and the suspect.
Much clearer. Thanks for the answers.
I hadn’t realized just how much of the racketeering laws had been a response to organized crime, nor appreciated the advantage of being able to seize assets.
I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t think racketeering requires partners. One person can be racketeering if he (or she) commits a crime several times and does so for money. So if I were a criminal mastermind and singlehandedly performed all the crimes attributed to me in paperbackwriter’s post, I’d be racketeering.
The original intent of the RICO laws was aimed at organized crime. Suppose someone like Vito Corleone was collected money from various criminal activities and used this money to buy an olive oil business and a nice house on Long Island. Vito is successfully prosecuted for his crimes but, without RICO, the government couldn’t touch his assets. His olive oil business is legitimate itself; it produces an income by selling olive oil. And he bought his mansion from a legitimate realtor and paid for it. So basically Vito got away with his crimes and gets to keep the rewards for his criminal endeavors (albeit from inside a prison cell).
The RICO laws established the principal that if you used money from ongoing criminal activites to pay for an asset, that asset could be seized as part of a prosecution even if it was not otherwise illegal. So Vito goes to prison and loses all the stuff he bought with his ill-gotten gains. Few would argue against this outcome.
But many (and I include myself) argue against other outcomes that have occurred under RICO. Let us now look at Vito’s cousin, Frank Corleone. Frank worked hard all his life and started a restaurant. But a police investigation found that three local teenagers bought beer in Frank’s restaurant. The fine for selling beer to minors is $5000 so Frank is looking at a $15,000 fine and probable loss of his liquor permit. Harsh but many would agree fair.
But the local DA points out that Frank sold beer three times to minors (a pattern of criminal activity) and made a profit for doing so (six dollars). So Frank’s restaurant is seized by the government. Frank bought his house and his car with the money he made from his business so they’re seized also along with Frank’s bank account. Most would argue that this was not the intent of RICO but similar situations do occur.