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

[Pericles]

ENDING RICO ACT ABUSE ACT
SECTION I: NAME
a. This act shall be known as the Ending RICO Act Abuse Act.

SECTION II: REFORMS
a. The RICO act shall be amended to decrease the statute of limitations for crimes relied upon in establishing an organizational nexus to seven (7) years.  18 USC 1961 et seq. shall be amended accordingly.
b. The RICO act shall be amended to remove trade secrets violations, prostitution, and common law fraud actions from the definition of racketeering. 18 USC 1961 shall be amended accordingly.
c. The RICO act shall be amended to remove enterprises lacking a separate economic existence and enterprises that lack a nexus to organized crime from the definition of enterprises. 18 USC 1961 shall be amended accordingly.

SECTION III: TIMING
a. This act shall take effect immediately.

House of Representatives
Passed in the House of Representatives 6-1-0-2
X YE
People's Regional Senate

Sponsor: Peanut
Senate Designation: SB 21-19

[Pericles]

This needs a sponsor.

[Peanut]

I'll sponsor.

[Pericles]

24 hours to object to Peanut sponsoring this.

[Pericles]

Peanut is recognized as the sponsor and is invited to speak on this bill.

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What are common law fraud actions?


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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What are common law fraud actions?


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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

How is this progressing?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

How is this progressing?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Maybe with Christmas over, the responses will increase hopefully.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well thats disappointing.

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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

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?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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

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?

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

My concerns have been satisfied. I am ready for a final vote if everyone else is.

[Peanut]

I move for a final vote.

[Pericles]

24 hours to object to the final vote motion.

[Pericles]

With no objection, a final vote has begun on this bill. Senators have 72 hours to vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Peanut]

Aye.

[ON Progressive]

Aye

[Pyro]

Aye