18 U.S.C. § 1962
Prohibited activities
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
United States v. Terry Christensen (2016)
“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. (2006)
“DEFENDANTS HAVE VIOLATED 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (d).....................”
Bizzie Walters v. Todd McMahen (2012)
“(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 (2006)
“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 (2019)
“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 Alliance v. Hickenlooper (2017)
“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 Services, Inc. (2012)
“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 (2011)
“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. (2020)
“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 (2007)
“” 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 Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation (2010)
“§ 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.”
American Dental Assoc. v. Cigna Corp. (2010)
“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.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 1962(4) — 1 case
— 18 U.S.C. § 1962(A) — 1 case
— 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a) — 11 cases
— 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b) — 8 cases
United States v. Salerno (1992)
United States v. Sciarra (1988)
Ambellu v. Re'ese Adbarat Debre Selam Kidist Mariam, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Religion Church (2019)
— 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) — 61 cases
United States v. Smith (2005)
United States v. Stanley Friedman, Michael Lazar, Lester Shafran, and Marvin Kaplan, Defendants (1988)
— 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) — 37 cases
Hourani v. Mirtchev (2013)
Shapo v. O'SHAUGHNESSY (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.