Debt collectors are now starting to worry about getting hit with civil Rico act claims. I personally know very little or nothing at all about such things but I do have a lot of reference material relating to that subject which I will attempt to put together into a set of articles and webpages that show the thinking and works of those who claim to know about such things.
Here is one article on Rico by attorney Jeff Grell of Rico Act website.
RICO Act - About the RICO Act
Disclaimer
The RICO Act
Frequently Asked Questions
Rico in a Nutshell
The Act
Articles
GlossaryDO I HAVE A RICO CLAIM?
This is by far the most common question that I receive at Ricoact.com.
There is no simple answer to this question because the answer depends upon
the unique facts of each case.
I have found, however, that a large percentage of potential RICO claims
are undermined by the following considerations:
A RICO claim cannot exist in the absence of criminal activity. The
simplest way to put this concept is: no crime - no RICO violation. This
rule applies even in the context of civil RICO claims. Every RICO claim
must be based upon a violation of one of the crimes listed in 18 U.S.C.
ยง 1961(1). The RICO Act refers to such criminal activity as racketeering
activity. RICO claims cannot be based upon breach of contract, broken
promises, negligence, defective product design, failed business
transactions, or any number of other factual scenarios that may give
rise to other claims under the common law. This being said, a RICO claim
can be based upon violations of the criminal mail and wire fraud
statutes. The mail and wire fraud statutes are very broad. Some creative
lawyers have succeeded in arguing that the mail and wire fraud statutes
have been violated by fact patterns that superficially appear to give
rise only to claims of negligence, breach of contract, and other actions
giving rise to common law rights. If a RICO claim is based only upon
violations of the mail or wire fraud statutes, however, courts are
likely to subject the claims to stricter scrutiny. Courts look more
favorably upon RICO claims based upon true criminal behavior, such as
bribery, kickbacks, extortion, obstruction of justice, and clearly
criminal schemes that are advanced by the use of the mails and wires.
RICO addresses long-term, not one-shot, criminal activity. Not only must
a RICO claim be based upon criminal activity, but the criminal acts must
constitute a "pattern" of criminal activity. A single criminal act,
short-term criminal conduct, or criminal actions that bear no
relationship to each other will not give rise to a RICO claim. The
United States Supreme Court has ruled that criminal actions constitute a
"pattern" only if they are related and continuous. In order to be
"related," the criminal acts must involve the same victims, have the
same methods of commission, involve the same participants, or be related
in some other fashion. A pattern may be sufficiently continuous if the
criminal actions occurred over a substantial period of time or posed a
threat of indefinite duration. The former patterns are referred to as
closed-ended patterns; the latter patterns are referred to as open-ended
patterns. Accordingly, even if you have been injured by a criminal act,
you will not have a RICO claim unless that criminal act is part of a
larger pattern of criminal activity.
Your claim may be barred by the statute of limitations if you discovered
or reasonably should have discovered your injury four or more years ago.
Many people are mistaken that civil RICO claims are not subject to a
statute of limitations. True, Congress failed to include a statute of
limitations when it passed the RICO Act, but the United States Supreme
Court has remedied that oversight and imposed a four-year statute of
limitations on all civil RICO claims. Civil Rico's statute of
limitations begins to run when the victim discovers or reasonably should
have discovered its injury. Many people also believe that the statute of
limitations is reset every time a new criminal act is committed - this
is not true. Once a victim is aware or should be aware of its injury,
the victim has four years to discover the remaining elements of its
claim and bring suit. A victim cannot sit on its rights and refrain from
filing suit in the face of known injuries. That being said, however,
there are several equitable doctrines that may toll or suspend the
running of the statute of limitations. If a defendant fraudulently
conceals facts that are essential to the victim's ability to purse its
rights, the running of the statute of limitations may be tolled. In
addition, acts of duress, such as "if you sue me, I'll kill you," may
toll the running of the statute of limitations. All tolling doctrines
are based upon whether it is fair, under the circumstances, to bar the
victim's claims on the basis of the running of the statute of
limitations. Also, if a defendant engages in a new pattern of
rackeeting, that causes new and independent injuries, a new limitations
period may apply to those new and independent injuries.
Of course, these are merely general considerations. Consult with an
attorney to determine whether the facts of your particular case give rise
to a RICO claim.
with frivilous lawsuits, he has publicly issued a death threat against me. If what he says has any validity, would his threating my life be necessary? Is that the methodology a reputable business person would employ? I'm sure you know the answer to that.
![](http://www.ftc.gov/images/hpbuttons/hot_credit_reports.gif")
