NCJ Number
88451
Journal
California Western Law Volume: 18 Issue: 2 Dated: (1982) Pages: 345-362
Date Published
1982
Length
18 pages
Annotation
Case law supports the conclusion that although RICO requires due provisions to be made for the rights of third parties, this requirement does not prevent a forfeiture just because a third party will be adversely affected.
Abstract
The RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act has the potential to be a powerful tool in the fight against organized crime and its infiltration of legitimate business. Although the forfeiture provision of RICO is the only in personam forfeiture in our jurisprudence, there are a number of in rem forfeiture provisions. The purposes of both in personam and in rem forfeitures are similar -- to prevent and remedy violations of the applicable laws. Both types of forfeiture have been routinely upheld against constitutional challenges. But unlike in rem forfeitures in which the guilt or innocence of the owner of the thing to be forfeited is irrelevant, the in personam forfeiture is dependent on the owner's conviction. Congress included in RICO provisions which could reach disguised or dispersed interests or those acquired or maintained with laundered racketeering income. This shows Congress' desire that prosecutors be able to reach virtually any interest in an enterprise which was acquired or maintained with income from racketeering activities or through such racketeering activities themselves. RICO forfeitures will be valid in any situation where a monetary fine under RICO will be valid. A total of 182 notes are included. (Author summary modified)