NCJ Number
90580
Journal
University of Cincinnati Law Review Volume: 52 Issue: 2 Dated: (1983) Pages: 503-523
Date Published
1983
Length
21 pages
Annotation
Following an analysis of two cases brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), it is concluded that it is appropriate for a corporation to be designated in an indictment as both enterprise and defendant.
Abstract
Congress' original intent in drafting RICO was to prevent organized crime from infiltrating legitimate businesses. The business infiltrated is defined as the 'enterprise' under RICO. RICO punishes as defendants those 'persons' who commit predicate offenses in connection with the 'enterprise.' Because the prosecution necessarily must allege and prove the existence of an enterprise in connection with which defendants committed the requisite predicate offenses, the enterprise element is the cornerstone of RICO, and a prosecutor's skill in delineating the enterprise underpinning a given series of racketeering acts can determine the outcome of a RICO case. The statute indicates that the enterprise may be either a de facto association of individuals or a legal entity. In two recent cases, the United States v. Computer Sciences Corp. and the United States v. Hartley, the courts considered for the first time the possibility of a corporation or a corporation and an unincorporated division thereof being cast in the dual role of 'enterprise' and 'defendant.' A relatively large, publicly held corporation that benefits from the scheme in which it plays an active role, as opposed to serving as a 'front,' is a prime candidate for this dual role in prosecutions under RICO, and nothing in the statutory language precludes that dual role. Also, the strong anticrime stance adopted by Congress militates in favor of allowing prosecutors to indict corporations as enterprises and defendants under RICO. Ninety-two footnotes are provided.