18 U.S.C. § 1964

Civil remedies

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section 1962 of this chapter by issuing appropriate orders, including, but not limited to: ordering any person to divest himself of any interest, direct or indirect, in any enterprise; imposing reasonable restrictions on the future activities or investments of any person, including, but not limited to, prohibiting any person from engaging in the same type of endeavor as the enterprise engaged in, the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or ordering dissolution or reorganization of any enterprise, making due provision for the rights of innocent persons.(b) The Attorney General may institute proceedings under this section. Pending final determination thereof, the court may at any time enter such restraining orders or prohibitions, or take such other actions, including the acceptance of satisfactory performance bonds, as it shall deem proper.(c) Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, except that no person may rely upon any conduct that would have been actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities to establish a violation of section 1962. The exception contained in the preceding sentence does not apply to an action against any person that is criminally convicted in connection with the fraud, in which case the statute of limitations shall start to run on the date on which the conviction becomes final.(d) A final judgment or decree rendered in favor of the United States in any criminal proceeding brought by the United States under this chapter shall estop the defendant from denying the essential allegations of the criminal offense in any subsequent civil proceeding brought by the United States.(Added Pub. L. 91–452, title IX, § 901(a), Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 943; amended Pub. L. 98–620, title IV, § 402(24)(A), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3359; Pub. L. 104–67, title I, § 107, Dec. 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 758.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1995—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 104–67 inserted before period at end “, except that no person may rely upon any conduct that would have been actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities to establish a violation of section 1962. The exception contained in the preceding sentence does not apply to an action against any person that is criminally convicted in connection with the fraud, in which case the statute of limitations shall start to run on the date on which the conviction becomes final”.

1984—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 98–620 struck out provision that in any action brought by the United States under this section, the court had to proceed as soon as practicable to the hearing and determination thereof.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1995 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–67 not to affect or apply to any private action arising under title I of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) or title I of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.), commenced before and pending on Dec. 22, 1995, see section 108 of Pub. L. 104–67, set out as a note under section 77l of Title 15, Commerce and Trade.

Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–620 not applicable to cases pending on Nov. 8, 1984, see section 403 of Pub. L. 98–620, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1657 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Construction of 1995 Amendment

Nothing in amendment by Pub. L. 104–67 to be deemed to create or ratify any implied right of action, or to prevent Securities and Exchange Commission, by rule or regulation, from restricting or otherwise regulating private actions under Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.), see section 203 of Pub. L. 104–67, set out as a Construction note under section 78j–1 of Title 15, Commerce and Trade.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4,045 cases (946 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York (2010) scotus · cites it 12× “That failure, the City argues, constitutes mail and wire fraud, which caused it to lose tens of millions of dollars in unrecovered ciga rette taxes.”

Safe Streets Alliance v. Hickenlooper (2017) ca10 · cites it 7× “5 Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c), against certain affiliates of a State- and county-licensed marijuana manufactory that allegedly has injured the landowners’ adjacent property.”

Clifton Jackson v. Sedgwick Claims Management Servs. (2013) ca6 · cites it 14× “See 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c).1 The district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”

United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc. (2005) cadc · cites it 13× “The relevant section of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (a), provides the District Courts jurisdiction only for forward-looking remedies that prevent and restrain violations of the Act.”

City of New York v. Smokes-Spirits. Com, Inc. (2008) ca2 · cites it 10× “In civil cases, however, RICO plaintiffs must also satisfy the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c). Section 1964(c) provides that "[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962" has the right to "recover threefold the damages he…”

United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc. (2009) cadc · cites it 7× “BATCo argues that the effects test is inapplicable because the United States had no obligation to prove that Defendants’ conduct had any effects whatsoever.”

Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (2008) scotus · cites it 4× “As the earlier canvass of state experience showed, this is the model many States have adopted, see supra, at 2623, and n.”

Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc. (1987) scotus · cites it 6× “At issue in these consolidated cases is the appropriate statute of limitations for civil enforcement actions under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U. S. C. § 1964 (1982 ed. and Supp. III).”

D'Addario v. D'Addario (2023) ca2 · cites it 17× “” 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c). We conclude that Virginia’s claims are not barred by the RICO Amendment because the fraud she alleges is not “in the purchase or sale of securities.”

Steven Menzies v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP (2019) ca7 · cites it 5× “We agree with the district court that the bar now embodied in 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c) did not prevent Menzies from pursuing a RICO claim on the facts alleged in his com- plaint.”

West Hills Farms, LLC v. ClassicStar Farms, Inc. (2013) ca6 · cites it 8× “) Because Plaintiffs were entitled to treble damages under RICO, see 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c), the district court multiplied these losses by three, to arrive at the figure of $49,405,811.”

European Community v. RJR Nabisco, Inc. (2001) nyed · cites it 12× “Having concluded that the revenue rule is not implicated in this case, I then address the Defendants’ arguments concerning Plaintiffs lack of standing under the federal civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c). A. The Revenue Rule Defendants argue that this court is bound to…”

Show all 4,045 citing cases →

— 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a) — 2 cases

United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2004) dcd

Watchous Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Pacific National Capital (2021) ksd

— 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) — 33 cases

Park Bank v. Roger E. Westburg (2013) wis

In Re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation (2003) mad

Keystone Insurance Company v. Houghton, Joseph, Houghton, Donna Livoy, Cassidy, John, Cassidy, Kathleen, Livoy, Frank (1988) ca3

Systems Management, Inc. v. Loiselle (2002) ca1

Seippel v. Jenkens & Gilchrist, P.C. (2004) nysd

— 18 U.S.C. § 1964(e) — 1 case

Farmers & Merchants National Bank v. San Clemente Financial Group Securities, Inc. (1997) njd

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.