U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART I— CRIMES › Chapter CHAPTER 96— RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS

18 U.S.C. § 1962

Prohibited activities

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. A purchase of securities on the open market for purposes of investment, and without the intention of controlling or participating in the control of the issuer, or of assisting another to do so, shall not be unlawful under this subsection if the securities of the issuer held by the purchaser, the members of his immediate family, and his or their accomplices in any pattern or racketeering activity or the collection of an unlawful debt after such purchase do not amount in the aggregate to one percent of the outstanding securities of any one class, and do not confer, either in law or in fact, the power to elect one or more directors of the issuer.(b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.(c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.(Added Pub. L. 91–452, title IX, § 901(a), Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 942; amended Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7033, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4398.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1988—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 100–690 substituted “subsection” for “subsections”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9,873 cases (2,178 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: United States v. Terry Christensen, 828 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Terry Christensen, 828 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 19× “The Defendants in the first trial (Pellicano, Arneson, Turner, Kachikian, and Nicherie) were convicted on the following charges: 3 The Fifth Superseding Indictment was the operative charging document.”
United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 449 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006). · cites it 37× “DEFENDANTS HAVE VIOLATED 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (d).....................”
Bizzie Walters v. Todd McMahen, 684 F.3d 435 (4th Cir. 2012). · cites it 17× “(Perdue), a major poultry processing company, filed a civil conspiracy action under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (d) of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.”
Tal v. Hogan, 453 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2006). · cites it 12× “filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Developers and the executive director of the Renewal Authority, Tiana Douglas, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1962 ,…”
Gibbs v. Haynes Invs., LLC, 368 F. Supp. 3d 901 (E.D. Va. 2019). · cites it 24× “Plaintiffs pursue this suit on behalf of Virginia residents who entered into loan agreements with Plain Green or Great Plains, bringing six class counts as follows: Count I: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (a). 22 Plaintiffs allege that the Haynes Defendants received "income derived, directly…”
Safe Streets All. v. Hickenlooper, 859 F.3d 865 (10th Cir. 2017). · cites it 8× “See 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (c). The Reillys note, for example, that “[l]easing or maintaining property for the cultivation of marijuana is a crime under” the CSA “and is racketeering activity” under RICO.”
Heinrich v. Waiting Angels Adoption Servs., Inc., 668 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 2012). · cites it 12× “The district court dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b), all claims in the plaintiffs’ third amended complaint brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962 . On appeal, the plaintiffs argue (1) that the…”
United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2011). · cites it 11× “The Government chose to prosecute the Bradleys’ schemes under the anti-racketeering, conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 , 371, 1341, 1343, and 1956, respectively, and the statutes criminalizing the failure to disclose an interest…”
Rosalba Cisneros v. Petland, Inc., 972 F.3d 1204 (11th Cir. 2020). · cites it 9× “Her complaint named Petland, Petland Kennesaw, and PAWSitive as the defendants and broadly asserted three claims: (1) a violation of the federal RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (c); (2) a conspiracy to violate the federal RICO statute, 18 U.”
United States v. Browne, 505 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2007). · cites it 11× “” 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (c). In support of this count, the Government was required to prove: (1) that an enterprise existed; (2) that the enterprise affected interstate commerce; (3) that the defendants were employed by or associated with the enterprise; (4) that the defendants…”
In Re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., 618 F.3d 300 (3rd Cir. 2010). · cites it 7× “§ 1 , and the RICO Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (c), (d), as well as violations of various state-law antitrust statutes and common-law duties.”
Am. Dental Assoc. v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2010). · cites it 7× “Counts I-IV are federal RICO and RICO-related claims: RICO conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (d) (Count I), a claim for aiding and abetting RICO violations under 18 U.”
Show all 9,873 citing cases →
— 18 U.S.C. § 1962(4) — 1 case
Derby City Capital, LLC v. Trinity HR Servs., 949 F. Supp. 2d 712 (W.D. Ky. 2013).
— 18 U.S.C. § 1962(A) — 1 case
Catlin Specialty Ins. Co. v. CBL & Assocs. Props., Inc. (Del. Super. Ct. 2017).
— 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a) — 11 cases
United States v. Bonanno Organized Crime Fam. of La Cosa Nostra, 683 F. Supp. 1411 (E.D.N.Y 1988).
4 K & D Corp. v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, 2 F. Supp. 3d 525 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
OSRecovery, Inc. v. One Groupe Int'l, Inc., 354 F. Supp. 2d 357 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
Epstein v. Haas Sec. Corp., 731 F. Supp. 1166 (S.D.N.Y. 1990).
Anitora Travel, Inc. v. Lapian, 677 F. Supp. 209 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).
— 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b) — 8 cases
United States v. Salerno, 505 U.S. 317 (1992).
Westchester Cnty. Indep. Party v. Astorino, 137 F. Supp. 3d 586 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).
Ambellu v. Re'Ese Adbarat Debre Selam Kidist Mariam, 387 F. Supp. 3d 71 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
United States v. Sciarra, 851 F.2d 621 (3rd Cir. 1988).
Ambellu v. Re'ese Adbarat Debre Selam Kidist Mariam, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Religion Church (D.D.C. 2019).
— 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) — 61 cases
United States v. Smith, 413 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 2005).
United States v. Stanley Friedman, Michael Lazar, Lester Shafran, & Marvin Kaplan, Defendants, 854 F.2d 535 (2d Cir. 1988).
United States v. Gilbert Madrid Gerald Inouye Gordon Yabui Edwin Madamba, 842 F.2d 1090 (9th Cir. 1988).
Cedar Swamp Holdings, Inc. v. Zaman, 487 F. Supp. 2d 444 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
United States v. Ronald J. Perholtz, United States of Am. v. Franklin W. Jackson, United States of Am. v. Gregory W. Fletcher, 836 F.2d 554 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
— 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) — 37 cases
United States v. Robert R. Krilich, Cross-Appellee, 159 F.3d 1020 (7th Cir. 1999).
United States ex rel. Lisitza v. Par Pharm. Companies, Inc., 276 F. Supp. 3d 779 (N.D. Ill. 2017).
Hourani v. Mirtchev, 943 F. Supp. 2d 159 (D.D.C. 2013).
United States v. Angel Torres Lopez, 851 F.2d 520 (1st Cir. 1988).
Shapo v. O'shaughnessy, 246 F. Supp. 2d 935 (N.D. Ill. 2002).
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.