NCJ Number
108987
Journal
Florida State University Law Review Volume: 15 Issue: 2 Dated: (Summer 1987) Pages: 321-350
Date Published
1987
Length
30 pages
Annotation
In this article, the author examines the problems resulting from an inconclusive definition of what constitutes a pattern of racketeering activity in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
Abstract
Because Congress chose to describe the pattern element in RICO in terms of what it is not (that is, less than two racketeering acts), instead of what it is, the courts have been struggling since the passage of RICO to determine what the pattern element means. At issue are such questions as (1) whether the law requires that the acts be connected to each other by a common scheme or motive, or is it sufficient that there be a relationship with the criminal enterprise and (2) whether multiple acts in furtherance of a single scheme should be construed as a pattern, or should those acts be considered part of the same criminal episode and hence only one act of racketeering. The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue obliquely in 1985 in a footnote in Sedima, SPRL v. Imrex Co. The author analyzes the pattern element before and after Sedima and discusses the implications for RICO if the definition of pattern requires both separate criminal episodes and a common scheme or motive. Additionally, the author examines Florida's RICO and how the Florida courts have interpreted its pattern requirement. The author concludes that, for the time being, the courts will have little help in interpreting RICO. Prosecutorial guidelines simply reflect the confusion of the courts. The definition of pattern varies depending upon the section of the statute under examination. Perhaps, the author suggests, Congress could not provide only one definition of pattern because the definition varies. Therefore, courts should consider pattern in terms of the particular section of RICO at issue. 134 footnotes.