Document Type

Article

Publication Date

1986

Abstract

In increasing number, victims of business fraud are bringing lawsuits under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Since the statute does not set out a time limit for bringing suit, the courts must determine the appropriate statute of limitations. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc. v. Crown Life Insurance Co. illustrates the difficulties Congress creates for the courts when it fails to provide a limitations period. RICO makes it illegal to engage in a "pattern of racketeering activity" for certain illegal purposes. A "pattern of racketeering activity" consists of at least two acts of "racketeering activity" within a ten-year period. "Racketeering activity" is defined in terms of a number of state and federal offenses, commonly referred to as predicate offenses. In addition to criminal penalties, RICO provides that any person injured in business or property by reason of a RICO violation may recover treble damages and attorneys' fees.

In this case, the Supreme Court will determine the statute of limitations for a RICO treble damages claim. To answer this question, the Court must decide a number
of related issues: Should the courts borrow a statute of limitations from state or federal law? Should there be a uniform statute of limitations for all RICO claims, or should the limitations period vary from case to case, depending upon the underlying offenses? If there should be a uniform period, what is the most appropriate
characterization for a private RICO claim?

Share

COinS