Showing posts with label Racketeering. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Racketeering. Show all posts

Saturday, July 16, 2016

18C95 Sec 1957: Engaging In Monetary Transactions In Property Derived From Specified Unlawful Activity

Social Justice Warriors; 

Will additional laws and programs protect you from Psychiatry, as a patient?

Since the United States Government, State and local Governments steadfastly refuse to enforce the Laws we already have, Why on earth would you think those same Government Misfeasant/Malfeasants would Enforce/Uphold whatever additional Laws/Programs/Special Protections Social Justice promises?

Know the Laws that were already broken against you. Demand they be upheld. No one can legally charge money to knowingly sell homicide. 

18 U.S. Code § 1957 - Engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity

(a)
Whoever, in any of the circumstances set forth in subsection (d), knowingly engages or attempts to engage in a monetary transaction in criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000 and is derived from specified unlawful activity, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
(b)
(1)
Except as provided in paragraph (2), the punishment for an offense under this section is a fine under title 18, United States Code, or imprisonment for not more than ten years or both. If the offense involves a pre-retail medical product (as defined in section 670) the punishment for the offense shall be the same as the punishment for an offense under section 670 unless the punishment under this subsection is greater.
(2)
The court may impose an alternate fine to that imposable under paragraph (1) of not more than twice the amount of the criminally derived property involved in the transaction.
(c)
In a prosecution for an offense under this section, the Government is not required to prove the defendant knew that the offense from which the criminally derived property was derived was specified unlawful activity.
(d)The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are—
(1)
that the offense under this section takes place in the United States or in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or
(2)
that the offense under this section takes place outside the United States and such special jurisdiction, but the defendant is a United States person (as defined in section 3077 of this title, but excluding the class described in paragraph (2)(D) of such section).
(e)
Violations of this section may be investigated by such components of the Department of Justice as the Attorney General may direct, and by such components of the Department of the Treasury as the Secretary of the Treasury may direct, as appropriate, and, with respect to offenses over which the Department of Homeland Security has jurisdiction, by such components of the Department of Homeland Security as the Secretary of Homeland Security may direct, and, with respect to offenses over which the United States Postal Service has jurisdiction, by the Postal Service. Such authority of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Postal Service shall be exercised in accordance with an agreement which shall be entered into by the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Postal Service, and the Attorney General.
(f)As used in this section—
(1)
the term “monetary transaction” means the deposit, withdrawal, transfer, or exchange, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, of funds or a monetary instrument (as defined in section 1956(c)(5) of this title) by, through, or to a financial institution (as defined in section 1956 of this title), including any transaction that would be a financial transaction under section 1956(c)(4)(B) of this title, but such term does not include any transaction necessary to preserve a person’s right to representation as guaranteed by the sixth amendment to the Constitution;
(2)
the term “criminally derived property” means any property constituting, or derived from, proceeds obtained from a criminal offense; and
(3)
the terms “specified unlawful activity” and “proceeds” shall have the meaning given those terms in section 1956 of this title.
(Added Pub. L. 99–570, title I, § 1352(a), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–21; amended Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, §§ 6182, 6184, 6469(a)(2), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4354, 4377; Pub. L. 102–550, title XV, §§ 1526(b), 1527(b), Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4065;Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330020, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2149; Pub. L. 103–325, title IV, § 413(c)(2), Sept. 23, 1994, 108 Stat. 2255; Pub. L. 109–177, title IV, § 403(c)(2), Mar. 9, 2006, 120 Stat. 243; Pub. L. 111–21, § 2(f)(2), May 20, 2009, 123 Stat. 1618; Pub. L. 112–186, § 4(b)(2), Oct. 5, 2012, 126 Stat. 1429.)


Thank You Cornell Law

Thursday, July 14, 2016

18C95 Sec 1956: Laundering of Monetary Instruments

The drugs are already prohibited by law, 
except when Simon/Government Says they're not.


To those who think Social Justice is going to correct what was criminally done to you BY Psychiatry, . . . understand that Social Justice over riding existing Law, . . . is what ran you over to begin with.

The System officially declared you a Special Snowflake deserving of Special Treatment, and shoved the Laws out of the way in order for Psychiatry to give you that "Special Treatment."

18 U.S. Code § 1956 - Laundering of monetary instruments
(a)
(1)Whoever, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity—
(A)
(i)
with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity; or
(ii)
with intent to engage in conduct constituting a violation of section 7201 or 7206 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
(B)knowing that the transaction is designed in whole or in part—
(i)
to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or
(ii)
to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law,
shall be sentenced to a fine of not more than $500,000 or twice the value of the property involved in the transaction, whichever is greater, or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both. For purposes of this paragraph, a financial transaction shall be considered to be one involving the proceeds of specified unlawful activity if it is part of a set of parallel or dependent transactions, any one of which involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, and all of which are part of a single plan or arrangement.
(2)Whoever transports, transmits, or transfers, or attempts to transport, transmit, or transfer a monetary instrument or funds from a place in the United States to or through a place outside the United States or to a place in the United States from or through a place outside the United States—
(A)
with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity; or
(B)knowing that the monetary instrument or funds involved in the transportation, transmission, or transfer represent the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity and knowing that such transportation, transmission, or transfer is designed in whole or in part—
(i)
to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or
(ii)
to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law,
shall be sentenced to a fine of not more than $500,000 or twice the value of the monetary instrument or funds involved in the transportation, transmission, or transfer, whichever is greater, or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both. For the purpose of the offense described in subparagraph (B), the defendant’s knowledge may be established by proof that a law enforcement officer represented the matter specified in subparagraph (B) as true, and the defendant’s subsequent statements or actions indicate that the defendant believed such representations to be true.
(3)Whoever, with the intent—
(A)
to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity;
(B)
to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of property believed to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or
(C)
to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law,
conducts or attempts to conduct a financial transaction involving property represented to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, or property used to conduct or facilitate specified unlawful activity, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. For purposes of this paragraph and paragraph (2), the term “represented” means any representation made by a law enforcement officer or by another person at the direction of, or with the approval of, a Federal official authorized to investigate or prosecute violations of this section.
(b)Penalties.—
(1)In general.—Whoever conducts or attempts to conduct a transaction described in subsection (a)(1) or (a)(3), or section 1957, or a transportation, transmission, or transfer described in subsection (a)(2), is liable to the United States for a civil penalty of not more than the greater of—
(A)
the value of the property, funds, or monetary instruments involved in the transaction; or
(B)
$10,000.
(2)Jurisdiction over foreign persons.—For purposes of adjudicating an action filed or enforcing a penalty ordered under this section, the district courts shall have jurisdiction over any foreign person, including any financial institution authorized under the laws of a foreign country, against whom the action is brought, if service of process upon the foreign person is made under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the laws of the country in which the foreign person is found, and—
(A)
the foreign person commits an offense under subsection (a) involving a financial transaction that occurs in whole or in part in the United States;
(B)
the foreign person converts, to his or her own use, property in which the United States has an ownership interest by virtue of the entry of an order of forfeiture by a court of the United States; or
(C)
the foreign person is a financial institution that maintains a bank account at a financial institution in the United States.
(3)Court authority over assets.—
A court may issue a pretrial restraining order or take any other action necessary to ensure that any bank account or other property held by the defendant in the United States is available to satisfy a judgment under this section.
(4)Federal receiver.—
(A)In general.—
A court may appoint a Federal Receiver, in accordance with subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, to collect, marshal, and take custody, control, and possession of all assets of the defendant, wherever located, to satisfy a civil judgment under this subsection, a forfeiture judgment under section 981 or 982, or a criminal sentence under section 1957 or subsection (a) of this section, including an order of restitution to any victim of a specified unlawful activity.
(B)Appointment and authority.—A Federal Receiver described in subparagraph (A)—
(i)
may be appointed upon application of a Federal prosecutor or a Federal or State regulator, by the court having jurisdiction over the defendant in the case;
(ii)
shall be an officer of the court, and the powers of the Federal Receiver shall include the powers set out insection 754 of title 28, United States Code; and
(iii)shall have standing equivalent to that of a Federal prosecutor for the purpose of submitting requests to obtain information regarding the assets of the defendant—
(I)
from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the Department of the Treasury; or
(II)
from a foreign country pursuant to a mutual legal assistance treaty, multilateral agreement, or other arrangement for international law enforcement assistance, provided that such requests are in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Attorney General.
(c)As used in this section—
(1)
the term “knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity” means that the person knew the property involved in the transaction represented proceeds from some form, though not necessarily which form, of activity that constitutes a felony under State, Federal, or foreign law, regardless of whether or not such activity is specified in paragraph (7);
(2)
the term “conducts” includes initiating, concluding, or participating in initiating, or concluding a transaction;
(3)
the term “transaction” includes a purchase, sale, loan, pledge, gift, transfer, delivery, or other disposition, and with respect to a financial institution includes a deposit, withdrawal, transfer between accounts, exchange of currency, loan, extension of credit, purchase or sale of any stock, bond, certificate of deposit, or other monetary instrument, use of a safe deposit box, or any other payment, transfer, or delivery by, through, or to a financial institution, by whatever means effected;
(4)
the term “financial transaction” means (A) a transaction which in any way or degree affects interstate or foreign commerce (i) involving the movement of funds by wire or other means or (ii) involving one or more monetary instruments, or (iii) involving the transfer of title to any real property, vehicle, vessel, or aircraft, or (B) a transaction involving the use of a financial institution which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce in any way or degree;
(5)
the term “monetary instruments” means (i) coin or currency of the United States or of any other country, travelers’ checks, personal checks, bank checks, and money orders, or (ii) investment securities or negotiable instruments, in bearer form or otherwise in such form that title thereto passes upon delivery;
(6)the term “financial institution” includes—
(A)
any financial institution, as defined in section 5312(a)(2) of title 31, United States Code, or the regulations promulgated thereunder; and
(B)
any foreign bank, as defined in section 1 of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3101);
(7)the term “specified unlawful activity” means—
(A)
any act or activity constituting an offense listed in section 1961(1) of this title except an act which is indictable under subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31;
(B)with respect to a financial transaction occurring in whole or in part in the United States, an offense against a foreign nation involving—
(i)
the manufacture, importation, sale, or distribution of a controlled substance (as such term is defined for the purposes of the Controlled Substances Act);
(ii)
murder, kidnapping, robbery, extortion, destruction of property by means of explosive or fire, or a crime of violence (as defined in section 16);
(iii)
fraud, or any scheme or attempt to defraud, by or against a foreign bank (as defined in paragraph 7 of section 1(b) of the International Banking Act of 1978)); [1]
(iv)
bribery of a public official, or the misappropriation, theft, or embezzlement of public funds by or for the benefit of a public official;
(v)smuggling or export control violations involving—
(I)
an item controlled on the United States Munitions List established under section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778); or
(II)
an item controlled under regulations under the Export Administration Regulations (15 C.F.R. Parts 730–774);
(vi)
an offense with respect to which the United States would be obligated by a multilateral treaty, either to extradite the alleged offender or to submit the case for prosecution, if the offender were found within the territory of the United States; or
(vii)
trafficking in persons, selling or buying of children, sexual exploitation of children, or transporting, recruiting or harboring a person, including a child, for commercial sex acts;
(C)
any act or acts constituting a continuing criminal enterprise, as that term is defined in section 408 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 848);
(D)
an offense under section 32 (relating to the destruction of aircraft), section 37 (relating to violence at international airports), section 115 (relating to influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a Federal official by threatening or injuring a family member), section 152 (relating to concealment of assets; false oaths and claims; bribery), section 175c (relating to the variola virus), section 215 (relating to commissions or gifts for procuring loans), section 351 (relating to congressional or Cabinet officer assassination), any of sections 500 through 503 (relating to certain counterfeiting offenses), section 513 (relating to securities of States and private entities), section 541 (relating to goods falsely classified), section 542 (relating to entry of goods by means of false statements), section 545 (relating to smuggling goods into the United States), section 549 (relating to removing goods from Customs custody), section 554 (relating to smuggling goods from the United States), section 555 (relating to border tunnels), section 641 (relating to public money, property, or records), section 656 (relating to theft, embezzlement, or misapplication by bank officer or employee), section 657 (relating to lending, credit, and insurance institutions), section 658 (relating to property mortgaged or pledged to farm credit agencies), section 666 (relating to theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds), section 793, 794, or 798 (relating to espionage), section 831 (relating to prohibited transactions involving nuclear materials), section 844(f) or (i) (relating to destruction by explosives or fire of Government property or property affecting interstate or foreign commerce), section 875 (relating to interstate communications), section 922(
l) (relating to the unlawful importation of firearms), section 924(n) (relating to firearms trafficking), section 956 (relating to conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim, or injure certain property in a foreign country), section 1005 (relating to fraudulent bank entries), 1006 [2] (relating to fraudulent Federal credit institution entries), 1007 [2] (relating to Federal Deposit Insurance transactions), 1014 [2] (relating to fraudulent loan or credit applications), section 1030 (relating to computer fraud and abuse), 1032 [2] (relating to concealment of assets from conservator, receiver, or liquidating agent of financial institution), section 1111 (relating to murder), section 1114 (relating to murder of United States law enforcement officials), section 1116 (relating to murder of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons), section 1201 (relating to kidnaping), section 1203 (relating to hostage taking), section 1361 (relating to willful injury of Government property), section 1363 (relating to destruction of property within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction), section 1708 (theft from the mail), section 1751 (relating to Presidential assassination), section 2113 or 2114 (relating to bank and postal robbery and theft), section 2252A (relating to child pornography) where the child pornography contains a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, section 2260 (production of certain child pornography for importation into the United States), section 2280 (relating to violence against maritime navigation), section 2281 (relating to violence against maritime fixed platforms), section 2319 (relating to copyright infringement), section 2320 (relating to trafficking in counterfeit goods and services), section 2332 (relating to terrorist acts abroad against United States nationals), section 2332a (relating to use of weapons of mass destruction), section 2332b (relating to international terrorist acts transcending national boundaries), section 2332g (relating to missile systems designed to destroy aircraft), section 2332h (relating to radiological dispersal devices), section 2339A or 2339B (relating to providing material support to terrorists), section 2339C (relating to financing of terrorism), or section 2339D (relating to receiving military-type training from a foreign terrorist organization) of this title, section 46502 of title 49, United States Code, a felony violation of the Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act of 1988 (relating to precursor and essential chemicals), section 590 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1590) (relating to aviation smuggling), section 422 of the Controlled Substances Act (relating to transportation of drug paraphernalia), section 38(c) (relating to criminal violations) of the Arms Export Control Act, section 11 (relating to violations) of the Export Administration Act of 1979, section 206 (relating to penalties) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, section 16 (relating to offenses and punishment) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, any felony violation of section 15 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (relating to supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits fraud) involving a quantity of benefits having a value of not less than $5,000, any violation of section 543(a)(1) of the Housing Act of 1949 (relating to equity skimming), any felony violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, any felony violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or section 92 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2122) (relating to prohibitions governing atomic weapons) [3]
environmental crimes
(E)
a felony violation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Ocean Dumping Act (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.), the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.), or the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.); or
(F)
any act or activity constituting an offense involving a Federal health care offense;
(8)
the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States; and
(9)
the term “proceeds” means any property derived from or obtained or retained, directly or indirectly, through some form of unlawful activity, including the gross receipts of such activity.
(d)
Nothing in this section shall supersede any provision of Federal, State, or other law imposing criminal penalties or affording civil remedies in addition to those provided for in this section.
(e)
Violations of this section may be investigated by such components of the Department of Justice as the Attorney General may direct, and by such components of the Department of the Treasury as the Secretary of the Treasury may direct, as appropriate, and, with respect to offenses over which the Department of Homeland Security has jurisdiction, by such components of the Department of Homeland Security as the Secretary of Homeland Security may direct, and, with respect to offenses over which the United States Postal Service has jurisdiction, by the Postal Service. Such authority of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Postal Service shall be exercised in accordance with an agreement which shall be entered into by the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Postal Service, and the Attorney General. Violations of this section involving offenses described in paragraph (c)(7)(E) may be investigated by such components of the Department of Justice as the Attorney General may direct, and the National Enforcement Investigations Center of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(f)There is extraterritorial jurisdiction over the conduct prohibited by this section if—
(1)
the conduct is by a United States citizen or, in the case of a non-United States citizen, the conduct occurs in part in the United States; and
(2)
the transaction or series of related transactions involves funds or monetary instruments of a value exceeding $10,000.
(g)Notice of Conviction of Financial Institutions.—
If any financial institution or any officer, director, or employee of any financial institution has been found guilty of an offense under this section, section 1957 or 1960 of this title, or section 5322 or 5324 of title 31, the Attorney General shall provide written notice of such fact to the appropriate regulatory agency for the financial institution.
(h)
Any person who conspires to commit any offense defined in this section or section 1957 shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
(i)Venue.—
(1)Except as provided in paragraph (2), a prosecution for an offense under this section or section 1957 may be brought in—
(A)
any district in which the financial or monetary transaction is conducted; or
(B)
any district where a prosecution for the underlying specified unlawful activity could be brought, if the defendant participated in the transfer of the proceeds of the specified unlawful activity from that district to the district where the financial or monetary transaction is conducted.
(2)
A prosecution for an attempt or conspiracy offense under this section or section 1957 may be brought in the district where venue would lie for the completed offense under paragraph (1), or in any other district where an act in furtherance of the attempt or conspiracy took place.
(3)
For purposes of this section, a transfer of funds from 1 place to another, by wire or any other means, shall constitute a single, continuing transaction. Any person who conducts (as that term is defined in subsection (c)(2)) any portion of the transaction may be charged in any district in which the transaction takes place.
(Added Pub. L. 99–570, title I, § 1352(a), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–18; amended Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, §§ 6183, 6465, 6466, 6469(a)(1), 6471(a), (b), title VII, § 7031, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4354, 4375, 4377, 4378, 4398; Pub. L. 101–647, title I, §§ 105–108, title XII, § 1205(j), title XIV, §§ 1402, 1404, title XXV, § 2506, title XXXV, § 3557, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4791, 4792, 4831, 4835, 4862, 4927; Pub. L. 102–550, title XV, §§ 1504(c), 1524, 1526(a), 1527(a), 1530, 1531, 1534, 1536, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4055, 4064–4067; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXII, § 320104(b), title XXXIII, §§ 330008(2), 330011(
l), 330012, 330019, 330021(1), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2111, 2142, 2145, 2146, 2149, 2150; Pub. L. 103–325, title IV, §§ 411(c)(2)(E), 413(c)(1), (d), Sept. 23, 1994, 108 Stat. 2253–2255; Pub. L. 104–132, title VII, § 726, Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1301; Pub. L. 104–191, title II, § 246, Aug. 21, 1996, 110 Stat. 2018; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 601(f)(6), 604(b)(38), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3499, 3509; Pub. L. 106–569, title VII, § 709(a), Dec. 27, 2000, 114 Stat. 3018; Pub. L. 107–56, title III, §§ 315, 317, 318, 376, title VIII, § 805(b), title X, § 1004, Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 308, 310, 311, 342, 378, 392; Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, §§ 4002(a)(11), (b)(5), (c)(2), 4005(d)(1), (e), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1807, 1809, 1812, 1813; Pub. L. 108–458, title VI, § 6909,Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3774; Pub. L. 109–164, title I, § 103(b), Jan. 10, 2006, 119 Stat. 3563; Pub. L. 109–177, title III, § 311(c), title IV, §§ 403(b), (c)(1), 405, 406(a)(2), 409, Mar. 9, 2006, 120 Stat. 242–244, 246; Pub. L. 110–234, title IV, §§ 4002(b)(1)(B), (D), (2)(M), 4115(c)(1)(A)(i), (B)(ii), May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1096, 1097, 1109; Pub. L. 110–246, § 4(a), title IV, §§ 4002(b)(1)(B), (D), (2)(M), 4115(c)(1)(A)(i), (B)(ii), June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1857, 1858, 1870; Pub. L. 110–358, title II, § 202, Oct. 8, 2008, 122 Stat. 4003; Pub. L. 111–21, § 2(f)(1), May 20, 2009, 123 Stat. 1618; Pub. L. 112–127, § 6, June 5, 2012,126 Stat. 371.)


[1]  So in original. The second closing parenthesis probably should not appear.

[2]  So in original. Probably should be preceded by “section”.

[3]  So in original. Probably should be followed by a semicolon.

Thank You Cornell Law.

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

18C95 Sec 1952: Interstate and Foreign Travel or Transportation In Aid of Racketeering Enterprises

It's illegal.
FDA Hiding Reports Linking Psych Drugs To Homicide

18C95 Sec 1952 Interstate and Foreign Travel or Transportation In Aid of Racketeering Enterprises

(a)Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, with intent to—
(1)
distribute the proceeds of any unlawful activity; or
(2)
commit any crime of violence to further any unlawful activity; or
(3)
otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity,
and thereafter performs or attempts to perform—
(A)
an act described in paragraph (1) or (3) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both; or
(B)
an act described in paragraph (2) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b)
As used in this section (i) “unlawful activity” means (1) any business enterprise involving gambling, liquor on which the Federal excise tax has not been paid, narcotics or controlled substances (as defined in section 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act), or prostitution offenses in violation of the laws of the State in which they are committed or of the United States, (2) extortion, bribery, or arson in violation of the laws of the State in which committed or of the United States, or (3) any act which is indictable under subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, or under section 1956 or 1957 of this title and (ii) the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
(c)
Investigations of violations under this section involving liquor shall be conducted under the supervision of the Attorney General.
(d)
If the offense under this section involves an act described in paragraph (1) or (3) of subsection (a) and also involves a pre-retail medical product (as defined in section 670), the punishment for the offense shall be the same as the punishment for an offense under section 670 unless the punishment under subsection (a) is greater.
(e)
(1)
This section shall not apply to a savings promotion raffle conducted by an insured depository institution or an insured credit union.
(2)In this subsection—
(A)
the term “insured credit union” shall have the meaning given the term in section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1752);
(B)
the term “insured depository institution” shall have the meaning given the term in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813); and
(C)
the term “savings promotion raffle” means a contest in which the sole consideration required for a chance of winning designated prizes is obtained by the deposit of a specified amount of money in a savings account or other savings program, where each ticket or entry has an equal chance of being drawn, such contest being subject to regulations that may from time to time be promulgated by the appropriate prudential regulator (as defined in section 1002 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5481)).

Thank You Cornell Law.

Friday, June 24, 2016

Real Time Sharing of Records 'Virtual Safety Net' for Patients In California

fiercehealthcare
by Susan D. Hall |
Jun 23, 2016 11:19am

Six East Bay-area hospitals in California plan to share patient records in real-time to create a “virtual safety net” for patients, reports Hospitals & Health Networks.

Participating hospitals are the Alta Bates Summit Medical Center in Oakland and Berkeley, Highland Hospital in Oakland, Sutter Delta Medical Center in Antioch, Eden Medical Center in Castro Valley and San Leandro Hospital.

“We’re trying to use technology and available information to make it so no matter what door a patient walks through in Alameda County, we’re all on the same page,“ Jim Hickman, CEO of Better Health East Bay, Sutter Health’s philanthropic foundation partner in the East Bay, says in the article.

The secure data-sharing platform integrates with each hospital’s electronic health record system and will help care teams understand each patient’s usage patterns and care needs in the community.

It also will help the organizations better treat “super users.” For instance, in the first 60 days online, the two Alta Bates Summit Medical Centers registered 16,119 individual patients, 4,191 of whom had been to the emergency department three or more times in the previous 12 months.

They also discovered that 2,000 of their patients had been treated at Highland Hospital and 1,448 had three or more ED visits in the previous year.

When patients go to the emergency department of any participating hospital, push notifications are sent to their primary care physicians and case managers.

Hospitals are employing a number of tactics for better addressing super users, such as making “house calls” on the homeless and using “navigators” within the ED to redirect patients to behavioral and mental health resources, low-income housing and other needs.

To learn more:
- here's the article

Read More:

Alta Bates Summit Medical Center

EHR
Interoperability

Thank You Ms Hall and FH.


Here's our take on the sharing of patients thoughts and moods by health care organizations/workers.



RICO, The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act



Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
Long title An Act relating to the control of organized crime in the United States
Acronyms(colloquial)

OCCA
RICO
Nicknames Organized Crime Control Act of 1970
Enacted by the 91st United States Congress
Effective October 15, 1970
Citations
Public law 91-452
Statutes at Large 84 Stat. 922-3 aka 84 Stat. 941
Codification
Titles amended 18 U.S.C.: Crimes and Criminal Procedure
U.S.C.sections created 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968
Legislative history

Introduced in the Senate as S. 30 by John L. McClellan(D–AR)
Passed the Senate on January 23, 1970 (74-1)
Passed the House on October 7, 1970 (341-26)
Signed into law by President Richard Nixon on October 15, 1970


The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is aUnited States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually commit the crime personally.[1]

RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91–452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted October 15, 1970), and is codified at 18 U.S.C. ch. 96 as 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968. G. Robert Blakey, an adviser to theUnited States Senate Government Operations Committee, drafted the law under the close supervision of the committee's chairman, Senator John Little McClellan. It was enacted as Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, and signed into law by Richard M. Nixon. While its original use in the 1970s was to prosecute the Mafia as well as others who were actively engaged in organized crime, its later application has been more widespread.

Beginning in 1972, 33 States adopted state RICO laws to be able to prosecute similar conduct.



Contents [hide]
1Summary
2State laws
3RICO predicate offenses
4Application of RICO laws
5Famous cases
5.1Hells Angels Motorcycle Club
5.2Frank Tieri
5.3Catholic sex abuse cases
5.4Gil Dozier
5.5Key West PD
5.6Michael Milken
5.7Major League Baseball
5.8Pro-life activists
5.9Los Angeles Police Department
5.10Mohawk Industries
5.11Latin Kings
5.12Gambino crime family
5.13Lucchese Crime Family
5.14Chicago Outfit
5.15Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella
5.16Scott W. Rothstein
5.17AccessHealthSource
5.18FIFA
5.19Drummond Company
6International equivalents to RICO
7See also
8References
9Further reading
10External links


Summary[edit]

Under RICO, a person who has committed "at least two acts of racketeering activity" drawn from a list of 35 crimes—27federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering if such acts are related in one of four specified ways to an "enterprise". Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity."

When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he or she has the option of seeking a pre-trialrestraining order or injunction to temporarily seize a defendant's assets and prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This provision was placed in the law because the owners of Mafia-related shell corporations often absconded with the assets. An injunction and/or performance bond ensures that there is something to seize in the event of a guilty verdict.

In many cases, the threat of a RICO indictment can force defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges, in part because the seizure of assets would make it difficult to pay a defense attorney. Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court, as it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts.[2]

RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3] There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4] In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]

Both the criminal and civil components allow the recovery of treble damages (damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages).

Although its primary intent was to deal with organized crime, Blakey said that Congress never intended it to merely apply to the Mob. He once told Time, "We don't want one set of rules for people whose collars are blue or whose names end in vowels, and another set for those whose collars are white and have Ivy League diplomas."[2]

Initially, prosecutors were skeptical of using RICO, mainly because it was unproven. However, during the 1980s and 1990s, federal prosecutors used the law to bring charges against several Mafia figures. The first major success was theMafia Commission Trial, which resulted in several top leaders of New York City's Five Families getting what amounted to life sentences. By the turn of the century, RICO cases resulted in virtually all of the top leaders of the New York Mafia being sent to prison.
State laws[edit]

Beginning in 1972, 33 states, as well as Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, adopted state RICO laws to cover additional state offenses under a similar scheme.[7]
RICO predicate offenses[edit]

Under the law, the meaning of racketeering activity is set out at 18 U.S.C. § 1961. As currently amended it includes:
Any violation of state statutes against gambling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, bribery, dealing inobscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act);
Any act of bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene matter, obstruction of justice,slavery, racketeering, gambling, money laundering, commission of murder-for-hire, and many other offenses covered under the Federal criminal code (Title 18);
Embezzlement of union funds;
Bankruptcy fraud or securities fraud;
Drug trafficking; long-term and elaborate drug networks can also be prosecuted using the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute;
Criminal copyright infringement;
Money laundering and related offenses;
Bringing in, aiding or assisting aliens in illegally entering the country (if the action was for financial gain);
Acts of terrorism.

Pattern of racketeering activity requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity. The U.S. Supreme Court has instructed federal courts to follow the continuity-plus-relationship test in order to determine whether the facts of a specific case give rise to an established pattern. Predicate acts are related if they "have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events." (H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.) Continuity is both a closed and open ended concept, referring to either a closed period of conduct, or to past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition.
Application of RICO laws[edit]

This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (August 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)


Although some of the RICO predicate acts are extortion and blackmail, one of the most successful applications of the RICO laws has been the ability to indict and or sanction individuals for their behavior and actions committed against witnesses and victims in alleged retaliation or retribution for cooperating with federal law enforcement or intelligence agencies.

Violations of the RICO laws can be alleged in civil lawsuit cases or for criminal charges. In these instances charges can be brought against individuals or corporations in retaliation for said individuals or corporations working with law enforcement. Further, charges can also be brought against individuals or corporations who have sued or filed criminal charges against a defendant.

Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) laws can be applied in an attempt to curb alleged abuses of the legal system by individuals or corporations who use the courts as a weapon to retaliate against whistle blowers, victims, or to silence another's speech. RICO could be alleged if it can be shown that lawyers and/or their clients conspired and collaborated to concoct fictitious legal complaints solely in retribution and retaliation for themselves having been brought before the courts.

Although the RICO laws may cover drug trafficking crimes in addition to other more traditional RICO predicate acts such as extortion, blackmail, and racketeering, large-scale and organized drug networks are now commonly prosecuted under the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute, also known as the "Kingpin Statute". The CCE laws target only traffickers who are responsible for long-term and elaborate conspiracies; whereas the RICO law covers a variety of organized criminal behaviors.[8]
Famous cases[edit]
Hells Angels Motorcycle Club[edit]

In 1979 the United States Federal Government went after Sonny Barger and several members and associates of theOakland charter of the Hells Angels using RICO. In United States vs. Barger, the prosecution team attempted to demonstrate a pattern of behavior to convict Barger and other members of the club of RICO offenses related to guns and illegal drugs. The jury acquitted Barger on the RICO charges with a hung jury on the predicate acts: "There was no proof it was part of club policy, and as much as they tried, the government could not come up with any incriminating minutes from any of our meetings mentioning drugs and guns."[9][10]
Frank Tieri[edit]

On November 21, 1980, Genovese crime family boss Frank "Funzi" Tieri was the first Mafia boss to be convicted under the RICO Act.[citation needed]
Catholic sex abuse cases[edit]

In some jurisdictions, RICO suits have been filed against Catholic dioceses, using anti-racketeering laws to prosecute the highers-up in the episcopacy for abuses committed by those under their authority[citation needed]. E.g. a Cleveland grand jury cleared two bishops of racketeering charges, finding that their mishandling of sex abuse claims did not amount to criminal racketeering[citation needed]. Notably, a similar suit was not filed against Cardinal Bernard Law, then Archbishop/Emeritus of Boston, prior to his assignment to Vatican City.[11][12] In 2016, RICO charges were considered for cover-ups in Pennsylvania.[13]
Gil Dozier[edit]

Louisiana Commissioner of Agriculture and Forestry Gil Dozier, in office from 1976 to 1980, faced indictment with violations of both the Hobbs and the RICO laws. He was accused of compelling companies doing business with his department to make campaign contributions on his behalf. On September 23, 1980, the Baton Rouge-based United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana convicted Dozier of five counts of extortion and racketeering. The sentence of ten years imprisonment, later upgraded to eighteen when other offenses were determined, and a $25,000 fine was suspended pending appeal, and Dozier remained free on bail.[14] He eventually served nearly four years until a presidential commutation freed him in 1986.[15]
Key West PD[edit]

About June 1984 the Key West Police Department located in the County of Monroe, Florida, was declared a criminal enterprise under the federal RICO statutes after a lengthy United States Department of Justice investigation. Several high-ranking officers of the department, including Deputy Police Chief Raymond Cassamayor, were arrested on federal charges of running a protection racket for illegal cocaine smugglers.[16] At trial, a witness testified he routinely delivered bags of cocaine to the Deputy Chief's office at City Hall.[17]
Michael Milken[edit]

On 29 March 1989 American financier Michael Milken was indicted on 98 counts of racketeering and fraud relating to an investigation into an allegation of insider trading and other offenses. Milken was accused of using a wide-ranging network of contacts to manipulate stock and bond prices. It was one of the first occasions that a RICO indictment was brought against an individual with no ties to organized crime. Milken pleaded guilty to six lesser felonies of securities fraud and tax evasion rather than risk spending the rest of his life in prison and ended up serving 22 months in prison. Milken was also ordered banned for life from the securities industry.[18]

On 7 September 1988, Milken's employer, Drexel Burnham Lambert, was threatened with RICO charges respondat superior, the legal doctrine that corporations are responsible for their employees' crimes. Drexel avoided RICO charges by entering an Alford plea to lesser felonies of stock parking and stock manipulation. In a carefully worded plea, Drexel said it was "not in a position to dispute the allegations" made by the Government. If Drexel had been indicted under RICO statutes, it would have had to post a performance bond of up to $1 billion to avoid having its assets frozen. This would have taken precedence over all of the firm's other obligations—including the loans that provided 96 percent of its capital base. If the bond ever had to be paid, its shareholders would have been practically wiped out. Since banks will not extend credit to a firm indicted under RICO, an indictment would have likely put Drexel out of business.[19] By at least one estimate, a RICO indictment would have destroyed the firm within a month.[20] Years later, Drexel president and CEO Fred Joseph said that Drexel had no choice but to plead guilty because "a financial institution cannot survive a RICO indictment."[21]
Major League Baseball[edit]

In 2002, the former minority owners of the Montreal Expos baseball team filed charges under the RICO Act againstMajor League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig and former Expos owner Jeffrey Loria, claiming that Selig and Loria deliberately conspired to devalue the team for personal benefit in preparation for a move.[22] If found liable, Major League Baseball could have been responsible for up to $300 million in punitive damages. The case lasted two years, successfully stalling the Expos' move to Washington or contraction during that time. It was eventually sent to arbitrationwhere the arbiters ruled in favor of Major League Baseball,[23] permitting the move to Washington to take place.
Pro-life activists[edit]

RICO laws were successfully cited in NOW v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 114 S. Ct. 798, 127 L.Ed. 2d 99 (1994), a suit in which certain parties, including the National Organization for Women, sought damages and an injunction against pro-life activists who physically block access to abortion clinics. The Court held that a RICO enterprise does not need an economic motive, and that the Pro-Life Action Network could therefore qualify as a RICO enterprise. The Court remanded for consideration of whether PLAN committed the requisite acts in a pattern of racketeering activity.
Los Angeles Police Department[edit]

In April 2000, federal judge William J. Rea in Los Angeles, ruling in one Rampart scandal case, said that the plaintiffs could pursue RICO claims against the LAPD, an unprecedented finding. The idea that a police organization could be characterized as a racketeering enterprise shook up City Hall and further damaged the already-tarnished image of the LAPD. However, in July 2001, U.S. District Judge Gary A. Feess said that the plaintiffs do not have standing to sue the LAPD under RICO because they are alleging personal injuries, rather than economic or property damage.[24]
Mohawk Industries[edit]

On April 26, 2006, the Supreme Court heard Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams, No. 05-465, 547 U.S. 516 (2006), which concerned what sort of corporations fell under the scope of RICO. Mohawk Industries had allegedly hired illegal aliens, in violation of RICO. The court was asked to decide whether Mohawk Industries, along with recruiting agencies, constitutes an 'enterprise' that can be prosecuted under RICO, but in June of that year dismissed the case and remanded it to Court of Appeals.[25]
Latin Kings[edit]

On August 20, 2006, in Tampa, Florida, most of the state leadership members of the street gang, the Latin Kings, were arrested in connection with RICO conspiracy charges to engage in racketeering and currently await trial. The operation, called "Broken Crown", targeted statewide leadership of the Latin Kings. The raid occurred at the Caribbean American Club. Along with Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office, Tampa Police Department, the State Attorney’s Office, the FBI,Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms were involved in the operation. Included in the arrest were leader Gilberto Santana from Brooklyn NY, Captain Luis Hernandez from Miami FL, Affiliate Celina Hernandez, Affiliate Michael Rocca, Affiliate Jessica Ramirez, Affiliate Reinaldo Arroyo, Affiliate Samual Alvarado, Omari Tolbert, Edwin DeLeon, and many others, totaling 39.
Gambino crime family[edit]

Also, in Tampa, on October 16, 2006, four members of the Gambino crime family (Capo Ronald Trucchio, Terry Scaglione, Steven Catallono, Anthony Mucciarone and associate Kevin McMahon) were tried under RICO statutes, found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.
Lucchese Crime Family[edit]

In the mid 1990s, prosecuting attorneys Gregory O’Connell and Charles Rose used RICO charges to bring down theLucchese family within an 18-month period. Dismantling the Lucchese family had a profound financial impact on previously Mafia held businesses such as construction, garment, and garbage hauling. Here they dominated and extorted money through taxes, dues, and fees. An example of this extortion was through the garbage business. Hauling of garbage from the World Trade Center cost the building owners $1.2 million per year to be removed when the Mafia monopolized the business, as compared to $150,000 per year when competitive bids could be sought.[26]
Chicago Outfit[edit]

[citation needed]

In 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice's Operation Family Secrets indicted 15 Chicago Outfit (also known as the Outfit, the Chicago Mafia, the Chicago Mob, or The Organization) members and associates under RICO predicates. Five defendants were convicted of RICO violations and other crimes. Six plead guilty, two died before trial and one was too sick to be tried.
Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella[edit]

A federal grand jury in the Middle District of Pennsylvania handed down a 48-count indictment against former Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judges Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella.[27] The judges were charged with RICO after allegedly committing acts of wire fraud, mail fraud, tax evasion, money laundering, and honest services fraud. The judges were accused of taking kickbacks for housing juveniles, that the judges convicted of mostly petty crimes, at a private detention center. The incident was dubbed by many local and national newspapers as the "Kids for cash scandal".[28] On February 18, 2011, a federal jury found Michael Ciavarella guilty of racketeering because of his involvement in accepting illegal payments from Robert Mericle, the developer of PA Child Care, and Attorney Robert Powell, a co-owner of the facility. Ciavarella is facing 38 other counts in federal court.[29]
Scott W. Rothstein[edit]

Scott W. Rothstein is a disbarred lawyer and the former managing shareholder, chairman, and chief executive officer of the now-defunct Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler law firm. He was accused of funding his philanthropy, political contributions, law firm salaries, and an extravagant lifestyle with a massive 1.2 billion dollar Ponzi scheme. On December 1, 2009, Rothstein turned himself in to federal authorities and was subsequently arrested on charges related to RICO.[30] Although his arraignment plea was not guilty, Rothstein cooperated with the government and reversed his plea to guilty of five federal crimes on January 27, 2010. Bond was denied by U.S. Magistrate Judge Robin Rosenbaum, who ruled that due to his ability to forge documents, he was considered a flight risk.[31] On June 9, 2010, Rothstein received a 50-year prison sentence after a hearing in federal court in Fort Lauderdale.[32]
AccessHealthSource[edit]

Eleven defendants were indicted on RICO charges for allegedly assisting AccessHealthSource, a local health care provider, in obtaining and maintaining lucrative contracts with local and state government entities in the city of El Paso, Texas, “through bribery of and kickbacks to elected officials or himself and others, extortion under color of authority, fraudulent schemes and artifices, false pretenses, promises and representations and deprivation of the right of citizens to the honest services of their elected local officials” (see indictment).[33]
FIFA[edit]

Fourteen defendants affiliated with FIFA were indicted under the RICO act on 47 counts for "racketeering, wire fraud and money laundering conspiracies, among other offenses, in connection with the defendants’ participation in a 24-year scheme to enrich themselves through the corruption of international soccer." The defendants include many current and former high-ranking officers of FIFA and its affiliate CONCACAF. The defendants had allegedly used the enterprise as a front to collect millions of dollars in bribes which may have influenced Russia and Qatar's winning bids to host the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cups respectively.[34]
Drummond Company[edit]

In 2015, the Drummond Company sued attorneys Terrence P. Collingsworth and William R. Scherer, the advocacy group International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates), and Dutch businessman Albert van Bilderbeek, one of the owners ofLlanos Oil, accusing them of violating RICO by alleging that Drummond had worked alongside Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia to murder labor union leaders within proximity of their Colombian coal mines, which Drummond denies.[35]
International equivalents to RICO[edit]

The US RICO legislation has other equivalents in the rest of the world. In spite of Interpol having a standardized definition of RICO-like crimes, the interpretation and national implementation in legislation (and enforcement) widely varies. Most nations cooperate with the US on RICO enforcement only where their own related laws are specifically broken, but this is in line with the Interpol protocols for such matters.

By nation, alphabetically
In Australia the Australian Crime Commission has powers based on similar legislation and regulations.[citation needed]
In Canada the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions enforce rules and regulations that cumulatively are equivalent to RICO.
New Zealand has a similar arrangement and commission to Australia.

Without other nations enforcing similar legislation to RICO many cross border RICO cases would not be possible. In the overall body of RICO cases that went to trial, at least 50% have had some non-US enforcement component to them. The offshoring of money away from the US finance system as part racketeering (and especially money laundering) is typically a major contributing factor to this.

However, other countries have laws that enable the government to seize property with unlawful origins. Mexico and Colombia both have specific laws that define the participation in criminal organizations as a separate crime,[36] and separate laws that allow the seizure of goods related with these crimes.[37] This latter provides a specific chapter titled "International Cooperation", which instructs Mexican authorities to cooperate with foreign authorities with respect to organized crime assets within Mexico, and provides the framework by which Mexican authorities may politely request the cooperation of foreign authorities with respect to assets located outside of Mexico, in terms of any international instruments they may be party to.

Arguably, this may be construed as allowing the application of the RICO Act in Mexico, provided the relevant international agreements exist among Mexico and countries with RICO or RICO-equivalent provisions.
See also[edit]

Government of the United States portal
Law portal

Continuing Criminal Enterprise
Patriot Act
Criminal Tribes Act
References[edit]

Jump up^ 18 U.S. Code § 1962(c); see also Criminal RICO Prosecutors Manual, elaborating that "A Defendant May Be Liable for a RICO Conspiracy Offense Even if the Defendant Did Not Participate In the Operation or Management of the Enterprise"
^ Jump up to:a b Sanders, Alain; Painton, Priscilla (August 21, 1989)."Law: Showdown At Gucci". Time. RetrievedSeptember 30, 2009.
Jump up^ Olsen,, William P. The Anti-Corruption Handbook: How to Protect Your Business in the Global Marketplace. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Jump up^ 18 USC § 1962.
Jump up^ "As the Supreme Court noted in National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 259 n.5 (1994), one commentator has used "the terms 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' and 'perpetrator' to describe the four separate roles the enterprise may play in § 1962." (citingG. Robert Blakey, The RICO Civil Fraud Action in Context: Reflections on Bennett v. Berg, 58 Notre Dame L. Rev. 237, 307-25 (1982). See page 32 of RICO State by State: A Guide to Litigation under the State Racketeering Statutes, John E. Floyd, Section of Antitrust Law, American Bar Association, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 97-70903, ISBN 1-57073-396-1
Jump up^ Van Over, Gil. "Can You Be Subject to a RICO Claim?". Dealer Magazine. Archived from the originalon October 14, 2008. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
Jump up^ Solo, Small Firm and General Practice Division."Introduction: RICO State by State: A Guide to Litigation Under the State Racketeering Statutes, Second Edition". American Bar Association. Retrieved February 15, 2014.
Jump up^ Carlson, K (1993). "Prosecuting Criminal Enterprises".National Criminal Justice Reference Series (United States: Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report): 12. RetrievedDecember 28, 2009.
Jump up^ Barger, Ralph 'Sonny'; Zimmerman, Keith; Zimmerman, Kent (2000). Hell's Angel: The Life and Times of Sonny Barger and The Hell's Angels Motorcycle Club.[full citation needed]
Jump up^ "Organized Crime Research". Klaus von Lampe. 2000. Retrieved December 8, 2007.
Jump up^ Weigel, David. "But Why Isn't Bernard Law in Jail? (Part 2)". Slate.com. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
Jump up^ Mitered in the Mob? Archived April 25, 2009, at theWayback Machine.
Jump up^http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/03/pennsylvania-diocese-racketeering-lawsuit-sexual-abuse-clergy
Jump up^ "707 F.2d 862: United States vs. Dozier". law.justia.com. Retrieved May 1, 2013.
Jump up^ "Inmate Locator". Federal Bureau of Prisons. RetrievedJune 18, 2013.
Jump up^ "Key West Police Department Called a 'Criminal Enterprise'". The New York Times. July 1, 1984. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
Jump up^ Klingener, Nancy (May 22, 2005). "From wrecking to smuggling to development, corruption, investigations have long history". Key West Citizen. Archived from the original on March 20, 2007. Retrieved September 30,2009.
Jump up^ Gerber, Jurg; Jensen, Eric L. (2007). Encyclopedia of White-collar Crime. Greenwood Publishing Group.ISBN 9780313335242. Retrieved August 16, 2014.
Jump up^ Stone, Dan G. (1990). April Fools: An Insider's Account of the Rise and Collapse of Drexel Burnham. New York City: Donald I. Fine. ISBN 1-55611-228-9.
Jump up^ Stewart, James B (1992). Den of Thieves (reprint ed.). Simon and Schuster. p. 517. ISBN 0-671-79227-X.
Jump up^ Kornbluth, Jesse (1992). Highly Confident: The Crime and Punishment of Michael Milken. New York City: William Morrow and Company. ISBN 0-688-10937-3.
Jump up^ Chass, Murray (July 17, 2002). "Baseball: A Group's Racketeering Suit Brings Baseball to Full Bristle". The New York Times. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
Jump up^ "Ruling clears way for move to D.C.". ESPN.com.Associated Press. January 15, 2004. RetrievedSeptember 30, 2009.
Jump up^ Weinstein, Henry (July 13, 2001). "Use of RICO Law in Rampart Cases Weakened". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved November 6, 2013.
Jump up^ "Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams, Shirley, et al."(PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. RetrievedMay 27, 2008.
Jump up^ Volkman, Ernest (1998). Gangbusters: The Destruction of America's Last Mafia Dynasty. 53 Shore Road, Winchester, MA 01890: Faber and Faber, Inc. ISBN 0-571-19942-9.
Jump up^ "Indictment: United States v. Conahan and Ciavarella"(PDF). September 9, 2009. Retrieved September 12, 2009.
Jump up^ Morgan-Besecker, Terrie (September 10, 2009). "Ex-judges hit with 48 counts". Times Leader. RetrievedSeptember 11, 2009.
Jump up^ "Jury finds Ciavarella guilty on first of 39 counts".Times Leader. February 18, 2011. Retrieved February 18,2011.
Jump up^ "Scott Rothstein Charging Document". Scribd.com. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
Jump up^ http://www.sun-sentinel.com/media/acrobat/2009-12/50820067.pdf
Jump up^ Weaver, Jay (June 9, 2010). "Ponzi schemer Scott Rothstein gets 50-year sentence". Miami Herald. Retrieved June 10, 2010.
Jump up^ Bracamontes, Ramon. "Public corruption: Feds allege bribery, kickbacks". El Paso Times. Retrieved April 24,2012.
Jump up^ "Nine FIFA Officials and Five Corporate Executives Indicted for Racketeering Conspiracy and Corruption".United States Department of Justice. May 27, 2015. Retrieved May 27, 2015.
Jump up^ Kent Faulk, Drummond sues those claiming coal company involved in Colombian deaths, The Birmingham News, April 8, 2015
Jump up^ Ley Federal contra la Delincuencia Organizada, 28 October 1996 (in Spanish)
Jump up^ Ley de Extinción de Dominio, 30 April 2009 (in Spanish)
Further reading[edit]
Criminal RICO: 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968: A Manual for Federal Prosecutors. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Criminal Division, Organized Crime and Racketeering Section, [2009].
United States. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee No. 5. Organized Crime Control. Hearings ... Ninety-first Congress, Second Session on S.30, and Related Proposals, Relating to the Control of Organized Crime in the U.S. [held] May 20, 21, 27; June 10, 11, 17; July 23, and August 5, 1970. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970.
External links[edit]
RICO Act from Cornell University's U. S. Code database

[hide]

v
t
e
Federal prosecution of public corruption in the United States

Statutes

Mail and wire fraud (Honest services fraud)
Hobbs Act
Travel Act
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
Program bribery

Precedents

United States v. Germaine (1879)
Burton v. United States (1905, 1906)
Glasser v. United States (1942)
United States v. Hood (1952)
United States v. Johnson (1966)
United States v. Nardello (1969)
United States v. Brewster (1972)
United States v. Helstoski (1979)
United States v. Gillock (1980)
Dixson v. United States (1984)
McNally v. United States (1987)
McCormick v. United States (1991)
Evans v. United States (1992)
Salinas v. United States (1997)
United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California (1999)
Fischer v. United States (2000)
Sabri v. United States (2004)
Skilling v. United States (2010)

Convictions

Federal officials
State officials
Local officials
Unincorporated territory officials

Investigations

Abscam
Alaska political corruption probe
BRISPEC
Operation Bid Rig
Operation Board Games
Operation Boptrot
Operation Greylord
Operation G-Sting
Operation Plunder Dome
Operation Rocky Top
Operation Silver Shovel
Operation Tennessee Waltz

Scandals

Congressional Post Office
Cunningham
Jack Abramoff CNMI
House banking
James A. Kelly, Jr.
Koreagate
MBM
Oregon land fraud
Rod Blagojevich
Salvatore DiMasi
Teapot Dome
Wedtech
William J. Jefferson

Topics

Public Integrity Section
Speech or Debate Clause



Authority control

WorldCat Identities
VIAF: 179059082
LCCN: n85299440
GND: 4505288-8


Categories:
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
1970 in law
91st United States Congress
Organized crime terminology
United States federal criminal legislation
American Mafia events
Inchoate offenses
United States federal public corruption crime



This page was last modified on 17 June 2016, at 14:59.