18 U.S.C. § 1692
Foreign mail as United States mail
Every foreign mail, while being transported across the territory of the United States under authority of law, is mail of the United States, and any depredation thereon, or offense in respect thereto, shall be punishable as though it were United States mail.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: Kim v. Kimm
Kim v. Kimm (2018)
“18 U.S.C. § 1692 ; (2) an injury to business or property; and (3) that the injury was caused by the violation of Section 1962.”
Allstate Insurance v. St. Anthony's Spine & Joint Institute, P.C. (2010)
“2009); 18 U.S.C. § 1692 (c). “A claim under section 1962(c) therefore requires a plaintiff to demonstrate (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity.”
City of Miami v. Bank of America Corp. (2015)
“In that case, the Court read a proximate cause requirement into RICO, reasoning that its statutory language (granting a cause of action to anyone injured “by reason of’ a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1692 , see 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c)) mirrored language used in the antitrust statutes,…”
Hlista v. Safeguard Properties, LLC (2016)
“” 18 U.S.C. § 1692 (d). Because a conspiracy claim will fail “if the pleadings do not state a substantive RICO claim upon which relief may be granted,” we will first examine the Hlistas’ substantive claim under § 1962(c).”
Tracey v. First American Title Ins. (2013)
“The complaint alleged six causes of action: (1) Money had and received (Count One); (2) Negligence (Count Two); (3) Breach of contract (Count Three); (4) Investment of proceeds of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1692 (a) (Count Four); (5) Conducting or…”
Avery v. United States (1977)
“See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1692 , 1701, 1702, 1708, 1709; Id.”
Washington v. Roosen, Varchetti & Oliver, PPLC (2012)
“) (“Plaintiff has abandoned its RICO claims 18 U.S.C. §§ 1692 (a) and (b) as it offers no response to defendant’s argument that plaintiff has failed to state a claim under RICO sections 1692(a) and (b).”
DirecTV, Inc. v. Cavanaugh (2003)
“901; (3)violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1692 ; (4) violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”), § 445.”
Tracey v. First American Title Ins. (2013)
“The complaint alleged six causes of action: (1) Money had and received (Count One); (2) Negligence (Count Two); (3) Breach of contract (Count Three); (4) Investment of proceeds of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1692 (a) (Count Four); (5) Conducting or…”
Prendergast v. First Choice Assets, LLC (2018)
“The only support the Galligan court provided for this contention was a reference to 18 U.S.C. § 1692 (b) -the Court presumes this was a reference to either §§ 1692b or 1692c(b), which the Court addresses below.”
Matera v. United States (2015)
“On August 31, 2004, Mat-era pleaded guilty before Judge Richard Casey pursuant to a plea agreement to two counts of conspiring to participate in the affairs of the Gambino Organized Crime Family through the commission of racketeering acts, in violation of the Racketeering…”
SCALERCIO-ISENBERG v. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP (2024)
“) The Amended Complaint2 alleged the following causes of action: (1) violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (“RICO”) statute by all Defendants (Count I); (2) violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1692 , by Messinger…”
— 18 U.S.C. § 1692(b) — 1 case
Allstate Insurance v. St. Anthony's Spine & Joint Institute, P.C. (2010)
“2009); 18 U.S.C. § 1692 (c). “A claim under section 1962(c) therefore requires a plaintiff to demonstrate (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.