SB 21-19: Ending RICO Abuse Act (Final Vote)

[Peanut]

I'll sponsor.

[Peanut]

My reasoning for this is less based on personal feelings about the issue at hand, and more on the inherent weakness of our current legal framework.

As then-Congressman MB stated during House debate, we're dealing with statute that is flawed and that allows for abuse, and it is only sensible to stop that.

[Peanut]

This is what they call in voice acting, the "Talking to Yourself" trope.

So sorry, Yankee! Already PMd you and will get a good response done.

[Peanut]

 Right, so first of all I would like to profusely apologize for not replying: first caused by being too busy to, and then by procrastination. I offer my apologies to the House and my fellow Senators.

Now, I already gave some thoughts on this but I'll add some more: while originally conceived as an anti-mafia measure (and working as such), RICO's uses have become much more open to abuse and to conflicts between federal and regional/state legislation. This basically makes it so that penalties cannot be applied based on the Act to crimes that do not merit it, as well as bringing our statute up to date on those issues. The creation and prosecution of new federal charges isn't a negative phenomenon per se, but it can be one when it blurs the distinction between the regions and the federal government and threatens due process. Now, to address Yankee's questions:

What are common law fraud actions?

To my understanding (and seemingly that of Illinois Legal Aid), a civil offense consisting of a harmful purposeful misrepresentation of legal fact.
It does seem curious to include it within the list the bill provides, but it is a separate offense that should not be considered within the scope of RICO (especially considering its more civil nature).

Also am I to assume the removal of prostitution is to accommodate legal prostitution in the states where such is legal?

That was my interpretation, yes. Having it codified in federal legislation (and, even worse, in a vague non-exclusive bill) is dangerous and could offer areas of conflict.


I found this link informative, even if I disagree with some of its takes.

Again, my apologies for taking so long to answer these satisfactorily.

[Peanut]

One last question, what is the impact of clause c?

The definition and scope of RICO enterprises, both legislatively and judicially, has historically been broader than the original bill (or common-sense governing principles) would entail. Clause C removes enterprises with those qualities (no links to organized crime, no separate economic existence) from those held liable under RICO, due to the fact that their inclusion in the original text has produced unnecessary complications on many fronts.

Am I to assume that as long as any business has a "separate economic existence" it would not be considered RICO?

Isn't that a possible exploit though?

On the contrary, it would remove enterprises without a separate economic existence from RICO qualifications. Many complications and abuse of the original law arise from the fact that "separate economic existence" can be (and has been) interpreted far too broadly, particularly in Courts, so we're doing away with that.

I don't really think that it can be exploited seeing as we are doing away with the clauses that have mainly been exploited, and ones that have almost never led to actual prevention of organized crime. As I see it, this is preventing abuse, not fostering it.

[Peanut]

I move for a final vote.

[Peanut]

Aye.