DOCSLIB.ORG

The Fundamentals of RICO

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Fundamentals of RICO CHAPTER 1 The Fundamentals of RICO by Jed S. Rakoff* Chapter Contents § 1.01 The Background of RICO § 1.02 The Elements in of a RICO Action § 1.03 Person [1] Statutory Definition [2] Vicarious Liability [3] The Immunity of State/Federal Entities, Government Officials, and Foreign States § 1.04 Employing a Pattern of Racketeering Activity or the Proceeds Thereof [1] Predicate Acts (“Racketeering Activity”) [a] “Indictable,” “Punishable,” “Chargeable” [b] Federal Offenses [c] State Offenses [d] Pleading Requirements [i] Generally [ii] Fraud: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) [2] “Pattern” [a] Statutory Language [b] Judicial Interpretation of the “Pattern” Requirement [i] Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co. [ii] Aftermath of Sedima * Judge Rakoff oversaw a general updating of this chapter in 1999 but does not otherwise participate in the updating of this book. 1-1 (Rel. 41) RICO: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL 1-2 [iii] “Mailings” vs. “Episodes” vs. “Schemes” [iv] “Continuity” and “Relationship” vs. “Distinctiveness” [c] H.J., Inc. and Its Aftermath § 1.05 The “Enterprise” [1] “Associated in Fact” Enterprises [2] Test to Establish Existence of an Enterprise: Associations in Fact [3] Distinction Between Enterprise and Defendant [4] Economic Motive [5] Types of Enterprises [a] Legitimate Business Entities [b] Illegal Enterprises [c] Individuals [d] Labor Unions [e] Governmental Entities [f] Foreign Corporations [6] Effect on Interstate or Foreign Commerce [7] Avoiding the Enterprise/Person Identity Problems § 1.06 Activities Prohibited Under the Act [1] Investment of the Proceeds [2] Acquiring an Interest in or Control of an Enterprise [a] Interest [b] Control [3] Conducting the Affairs of an Enterprise [a] The “Operation or Management” Test [b] Reves v. Ernst & Young [c] The Reves Majority’s Analysis [d] Certain Implications of Reves [e] Pre-Reves Decisions [4] Conspiracy § 1.07 Injury [1] Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co. [2] Standing for Private Individuals Who Can Show Injury [3] Standing to Bring Conspiracy Claims [4] Injury to Business or Property [5] The Filed Rate Doctrine [6] Causation Nexus § 1.08 Sanctions and Remedies [1] Criminal Sanctions 1-3 FUNDAMENTALS OF RICO § 1.01 [2] Civil Remedies [a] Equitable Relief for Private Parties [b] Punitive Damages and Contribution [c] Rule 11 Sanctions [d] Arbitration [3] Government Civil RICO ____________________ § 1.01 The Background of RICO Since its enactment in 1970, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”)1 has been one of the most controversial of federal statutes. Its criminal provisions are both novel and strin- gent, and apply to a greater range of conduct than any other criminal law. Its private civil provisions not only expand the scope of federal civil jurisdiction to cover most business torts but also materially alter the balance of power between plaintiffs and defendants. And under RICO’s so-called “government civil” provisions, the state can assert control over entire businesses and organizations. During the 1990s many of the fundamental questions regarding RICO’s scope and power were resolved. Nevertheless, the statute remains difficult to apply because its terms are artificial and not eas- ily correlated with everyday experiences. The main purpose of this chapter is to facilitate a basic understanding of RICO by describing its fundamentals. To appreciate what RICO has become, one must first understand its derivation. RICO’s origins were rather modest. RICO was simply one title, Title IX, of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970,2 a broad-based statute intended to combat the influence of organized crime in interstate and foreign commerce. Although the entire Orga- nized Crime Control Act was controversial, most of the public debate centered on its expanded wiretap provisions3 and its simplification of the granting of immunity.4 As a result, the particularized legislative history of many of RICO’s provisions is sparse. Generally, however, Congress enacted RICO in response to a fear of infiltration of legitimate commercial enterprises by traditional 1 Pub. L. No. 91-452, 84 Stat. 941 (1970) (codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 (1982), as amended by the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-473, §§ 302, 901, 1020, 2301, 98 Stat. 1837, 2040-2044, 2136, 2143, 2192). 2 Pub. L. No. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922 (1970) (codified as amended in scattered sec- tions of 18 U.S.C.). 3 Now largely codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522. 4 See 18 U.S.C. §§ 6001 et seq. (Rel. 45) § 1.01 RICO: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL 1-4 “organized crime” associations, a concern that dates back at least to the time of the Kefauver Committee hearings in the early 1950s.5 During the early 1960s, hearings before the McClellan Committee— and especially the testimony of Joseph Valachi regarding “La Cosa Nostra”—increased public concern about the impact of organized crime on ordinary commercial activities. In 1967, the Senate respond- ed by proposing two bills that would enhance the penalties for cer- tain organized crime activities in commercial ventures.6 Although Congress did not act on either bill, the hearings regarding the bills eventually spawned the first real version of RICO,7 which the Senate considered in 1969: an act designed to prevent “known mobsters” from infiltrating legitimate businesses.8 To avoid any constitutional prohibition against a crime of status, however, the proposal focused on whether the infiltration of a legitimate enterprise was derived from or implemented by a “pattern of racketeering activity,”9 rather than on the status of the person infiltrating the business. To assure nonethe- less that the statute covered every kind of “mob” infiltration of legit- imate business, Congress defined “racketeering activity” broadly to include a long list of state and federal predicate crimes commonly committed by mobsters and other career criminals.10 This approach caused some of those following the development of the statute to worry that it might be constitutionally defective because it was overbroad. Original drafts of the legislation sought to minimize such concerns by vesting enforcement of both the statute’s criminal and civil provisions exclusively with the government.11 When the bill reached the House of Representatives, however, that chamber offered a number of amendments, including a private, civil, treble-damage provision “similar to the private damage remedy found in the antitrust- laws.”12 The House passed the amendment with little debate, and with- out seriously considering whether it meshed with the rest of the bill.13 5 See generally, Lynch, “RICO: The Crime of Being a Criminal, Parts I and II,” 87 Columbia L. Rev. 661, 661-713 (1987) (discussing the origins and development of RICO). 6 S. 2048 and S. 2049, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967). 7 S. 30, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969). 8 S. Rep. 91-617, at 76 (1969). 9 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5). 10 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). 11 See Blakey and Gettings, “Racketeer and Corrupt Organizations (RICO): Basic Concepts—Criminal and Civil Remedies,” 53 Temple L. Q. 1009, 1017-1019 (1980). 12 Hearings on S. 30, and Related Proposals, Before Subcomm. No. 5 of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 520 (1970) (statement of Rep. Steiger) (quoted in Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 487, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985)). 13 See Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 487-488, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985). 1-5 FUNDAMENTALS OF RICO § 1.01 After the House passed the amended bill, Congress did not send it to a conference because elections were approaching and the session was almost over. Instead, the bill was returned to the Senate, which passed the House-amended version without further debate.14 On Octo- ber 15, 1970 President Nixon signed RICO, Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act, into law. Although RICO’s stated purpose was “the elimination of the infil- tration of organized crime and racketeering into legitimate organiza- tions operating in interstate commerce,”15 its language was not limit- ed accordingly, and as a result the courts have not thus limited its application but have applied RICO to a wide variety of persons16 and situations17 that the enacting Congress did not envision. RICO’s evo- 14 Blakey and Gettings, N. 11 supra, Temple L. Q. at 1021. 15 S. Rep. No. 91-617, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 161, at 76 (1969). See, e.g., United States v. Boylan, 620 F.2d 359, 361 (2d Cir. 1980). 16 See, e.g.: First Circuit: Micro-Medical Industries v. Hatton, 607 F. Supp. 931, 938 (D.P.R. 1985). Second Circuit: Moss v. Morgan Stanley, Inc., 719 F.2d 5, 21 (2d Cir. 1983). Third Circuit: United States v. Vignola, 464 F. Supp. 1091, 1095-1096 (E.D. Pa. 1979), aff’d 605 F.2d 1199 (3d Cir. 1979). Fourth Circuit: United States v. Mandel, 415 F. Supp. 997, 1018-1019 (D. Md. 1976). Fifth Circuit: Owl Construction Co. v. Ronald Admas Contractor, Inc., 727 F.2d 540, 542 (5th Cir. 1984). Sixth Circuit: Austin v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 570 F. Supp. 667, 669-670 (W.D. Mich. 1983). Seventh Circuit: Bunker Ramo Corp. v. United Business Forms, Inc., 713 F.2d 1272, 1287 n.6 (7th Cir. 1983). Eighth Circuit: Bennett v. Berg, 685 F.2d 1053, 1063-1064 (8th Cir. 1982), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, and remanded on other grounds on reh’g en banc 710 F.2d 1361 (8th Cir. 1983). Ninth Circuit: United States v. Campanale, 518 F.2d 352, 363-364 (9th Cir. 1975). But see, Hokama v. E.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • INVESTIGATIVE REPORT Lori Torres, Inspector General
    INVESTIGATIVE REPORT Lori Torres, Inspector General OFFICE: INDIANA BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES TITLE: FORGERY; PERJURY; THEFT CASE ID: 2017-12-0293 DATE: August 30, 2018 Inspector General Staff Attorney Kelly Elliott, after an investigation by Special Agent Mark Mitchell, reports as follows: The Indiana General Assembly charged the Office of Inspector General (OIG) with addressing fraud, waste, abuse, and wrongdoing in the executive branch of state government. IC 4-2-7-2(b). The OIG also investigates criminal activity and ethics violations by state workers. IC 4-2-7-3. The OIG may recommend policies and carry out other activities designed to deter, detect, and eradicate fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement, and misconduct in state government. IC 4-2- 7-3(2). On March 23, 2017, the OIG received a complaint from the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) that alleged a former BMV employee, Richard Pringle, submitted false information to the BMV on personal certificate of title applications. OIG Special Agent Mark Mitchell conducted an investigation into this matter. Through the course of his investigation, Special Agent Mitchell interviewed Pringle and reviewed documentation received from BMV, including their internal investigation report on this matter. According to BMV’s investigative report of the allegations against Pringle, BMV found that Pringle submitted an application for a 1997 GMC Yukon in October 2016 that listed a sale price 1 that was different from the price the seller of the vehicle stated they sold it. At the conclusion of their investigation, BMV terminated Pringle’s employment in or around March 2017. Special Agent Mitchell reviewed the BMV certificate of title application for the 1997 GMC Yukon.
    [Show full text]
  • Motor Vehicle Insurance Fraud and Related Crimes
    2017 Statewide Plan of Operation Detection, Prevention, Deterrence, and Reduction of Motor Vehicle Insurance Fraud and Related Crimes COPYRIGHT NOTICE Copyright 2017 by the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) This publication may be reproduced without the express written permission of DCJS provided that this copyright notice appears on all copies or segments of the publication. The 2017 edition is published on behalf of the New York State Motor Vehicle Theft and Insurance Fraud Prevention by the: New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services Office of Program Development and Funding Alfred E. Smith Office Building 80 South Swan Street Albany, New York 12210 Table of Contents The Statewide Plan of Operation for Motor Vehicle Insurance Fraud Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 Eligible Programs ................................................................................................. 1 Outline of Statewide Plan ..................................................................................... 1 Part I: Problem Identification of Motor Vehicle Insurance Fraud National Overview ................................................................................................ 3 Statewide Overview .............................................................................................. 3 Part II: Analysis of Motor Vehicle Insurance Fraud in New York State Statewide .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Insurance Fraud Is a Felony
    1-800-927-4357 www.insurance.ca.gov Insurance Fraud Is a Felony Dave Jones, Insurance Commissioner California Department of Insurance STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE 300 S. Spring Street, South Tower Los Angeles, CA 90013 Dear California Consumer: Thank you for contacting the California Department of Insurance (CDI). As part of our effort to build the best consumer protection agency in the nation, we have created this guide to provide consumers the information and tools to deal effectively with agents, brokers, and insurance companies. We are committed to finding solutions and taking immediate action to help eliminate the many problems now occurring in homeowners, health, and workers’ compensation insurance, as well as consumer privacy protection. These important insurance issues speak to the very fabric of our social economic system and to the future strength of our society and economy in California. Please feel free to contact our Consumer Hotline at 800-927-HELP (4357) if you have further questions about this guide, or if you are experiencing a problem with an agent, broker, or insurance company. The Hotline is staffed by knowledgeable insurance professionals who are ready to assist you with your insurance needs. If you are interested in other insurance topics, CDI has a full range of insurance guides available on our website at www.insurance.ca.gov, or by calling our Consumer Hotline. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to serve you. 3 Table of Contents Fraud Division Overview ...................................................................5 What is Insurance Fraud. ....................................................................7 Insurance Fraud Costs Consumers .................................................9 Common Insurance Fraud Schemes ........................................... 10 Automobile Insurance Fraud........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Consumer Guide to Insurance Fraud
    A CONSUMER GUIDE TO INSURANCE FRAUD A CONSUMER GUIDE TO INSURANCE FRAUD INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION A CONSUMER GUIDE TO INSURANCE FRAUD TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . 1 Insurance Fraud . 1 What Is Insurance Fraud? . 2 Consequences of Insurance Fraud . 4 Fraud Against Seniors . 5 Fraud Against Businesses . 6 Drug and Health Discount Programs . 8 Avoid Being A Victim . 9 Additional Tips To Protect Yourself Against Insurance Fraud . 10 What To Do If You Are Involved In An Auto Accident . 12 Report Insurance Fraud . 14 Maryland Insurance Administration • 800-492-6116 • www.insurance.maryland.gov A CONSUMER GUIDE TO INSURANCE FRAUD INTRODUCTION The Maryland Insurance Administration (MIA) is an independent state agency that regulates Maryland’s insurance marketplace and protects consumers by ensuring that insurers and insurance producers (agents and brokers) act in accordance with insurance laws . We produced this guide to help educate Maryland residents about insurance fraud . The Insurance Administration also is responsible for investigating and resolving complaints and questions concerning insurers that conduct business in Maryland . INSURANCE FRAUD Insurance fraud is one of the most costly white-collar crimes in America . Insurance fraud ends up increasing the amount everyone pays in insurance premiums to offset the cost of the fraud . By law, all applications for insurance and all claim forms must contain the following statement, or a substantially similar one: Any person who knowingly and willfully presents a false or fraudulent claim for payment of a loss or benefit or who knowingly and willfully presents false information in an application for insurance is guilty of a crime and may be subject to fines and confinement in prison .
    [Show full text]
  • Of 23 Case No: 19-L-0846 CIRCUIT COURT for the 20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COUNTY of ST. CLAIR, STATE of ILLINOIS LISA MOORE
    Electronically Filed Kahalah A. Clay Circuit Clerk CARMEN GLENN 19L0846 St. Clair County CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 6/22/2020 10:42 AM COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR, STATE OF ILLINOIS 9555049 LISA MOORE, individually and on behalf of ) all others similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) No. 19-L-0846 ) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF Plaintiff Lisa Moore (“Plaintiff”), by and through Class Counsel,1 respectfully submits this memorandum in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. The Settlement Agreement (hereafter, “Settlement”) and its exhibits are attached as Exhibit 1 to the concurrently filed Declaration of Scott A. Bursor In Support Of Plaintiff’s Application For Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, And Class Service Awards (“Bursor Decl.”). On April 21, 2020, this Court granted preliminary approval to the parties’ Settlement Agreement and ordered that the Settlement Administrator execute the approved Notice Plan. See Order Granting Preliminarily Approval of Class Action Settlement. The tremendous response from Class Members confirms that the Settlement is fair and reasonable and provides outstanding relief to the Class. Although the claims deadline is not until August 18, 2020, the Claims Administrator estimates that upon receipt of 228,311 Claims, the entire $7,000,000 Benefit Fund will be exhausted. See Exhibit MFA1, the June 22, 2020 Decl. of Jeanne C. 1 All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same definitions as set out in the Settlement Agreement. Page 1 of 23 Case No: 19-L-0846 Finegan (“Finegan Decl.”) ¶ 31.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyber-Insurance: Fraud, Waste Or Abuse?
    #RSAC SESSION ID: STR-F03 Cyber-Insurance: Fraud, Waste or Abuse? David Nathans Director of Security SOCSoter, Inc. @Zourick #RSAC Cyber Insurance overview One Size Does Not Fit All 2 #RSAC Our Research Reviewed many major policies and some not so major… Spoke with Insurance agencies Spoke with Insurance agents Reviewed policies currently held by customers Got paid by insurance companies to perform Incident Response, forensics and breach analysis 3 #RSAC Types of Insurance Loss of digital assets Damage, alteration, corruption, distortion, theft, misuse, distortion (caused by damage or destruction, operational mistakes, computer crime such as malware, etc) ** NOT RANSOMWARE Non-physical business interruption interruption, degradation in service (caused by damage or destruction, operational mistakes, computer crime such as malware, etc) Cyber Extortion Threat Must get express written consent to pay from insurance company and contact authorities (FBI) all prior to paying any extortion money 4 #RSAC Types of Insurance Security Event Costs / Crisis Management Covers costs associated with resolving a breach, fines by government, regulatory or civil court. Other money for brand harm Network security and privacy Covers claims against you for acts, errors & omissions made by you and your contractors that results in a breach. (Not your breach, this is for a breach you caused somewhere else) 5 #RSAC Types of Insurance Employee Privacy Liability Covers damages to employees resulting in a breach Electronic Media Liability Covers plagiarism or copyright infringement on your website Cyber Terrorism Covers system outage due to terrorism (gov, political, ideological motivation) 6 #RSAC Types of Insurance Identity theft Covers the specific costs associated with notification of victims, credit monitoring, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the First Circuit)
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE 2019 REVISIONS TO PATTERN CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT DISTRICT OF MAINE INTERNET SITE EDITION Updated 6/24/19 by Chief District Judge Nancy Torresen PATTERN CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT Preface to 1998 Edition Citations to Other Pattern Instructions How to Use the Pattern Instructions Part 1—Preliminary Instructions 1.01 Duties of the Jury 1.02 Nature of Indictment; Presumption of Innocence 1.03 Previous Trial 1.04 Preliminary Statement of Elements of Crime 1.05 Evidence; Objections; Rulings; Bench Conferences 1.06 Credibility of Witnesses 1.07 Conduct of the Jury 1.08 Notetaking 1.09 Outline of the Trial Part 2—Instructions Concerning Certain Matters of Evidence 2.01 Stipulations 2.02 Judicial Notice 2.03 Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statement 2.04 Impeachment of Witness Testimony by Prior Conviction 2.05 Impeachment of Defendant's Testimony by Prior Conviction 2.06 Evidence of Defendant's Prior Similar Acts 2.07 Weighing the Testimony of an Expert Witness 2.08 Caution as to Cooperating Witness/Accomplice/Paid Informant 2.09 Use of Tapes and Transcripts 2.10 Flight After Accusation/Consciousness of Guilt 2.11 Statements by Defendant 2.12 Missing Witness 2.13 Spoliation 2.14 Witness (Not the Defendant) Who Takes the Fifth Amendment 2.15 Definition of “Knowingly” 2.16 “Willful Blindness” As a Way of Satisfying “Knowingly” 2.17 Definition of “Willfully” 2.18 Taking a View 2.19 Character Evidence 2.20 Testimony by Defendant
    [Show full text]
  • Tackling Health Insurance Fraud
    SPECIAL FEATURE – CLAIMS Tackling health insurance fraud Mr Colin Weston of RGA looks at what is being done to combat the growing phenomenon of health insurance fraud, and whether more actions are needed. t is impossible to accurately quantify the cost of health Perpetrators and types of fraud insurance fraud but, with real and sustained growth It is known that professional criminals have targeted Iboth of premiums and number of lives covered, the health insurers, in some cases setting up complex frauds. problem is set to escalate. In the US, which spends more These include fraudsters in the UK who, having previously on health than any other country in the world (16.2% of gained access to patients’ insurance details by collaborating GDP in 2009, according to the World Health Organiza- with motorcycle couriers used to transport specimens and tion), it is estimated that between US$68 billion and $175 accounting information, continued to bill unsuspecting in- billion is lost annually to health fraud. surers for a number of years after the closure of a pathology The problem may not be on the same scale in the MENA laboratory. In India, fraudsters targeted a government-run region, but there is already evidence that it is a real concern. scheme for those living below the poverty line by colluding In January 2010, the Health Authority of Abu Dhabi (HAAD) with such residents in the state of Kanpur to submit claims took 39 patients, doctors and insurers to court for a variety for fictitious treatment. of offences, including charging for medical services that had However, the majority of fraud involves real patients who not been provided, making fraudulent claims and using are often unsuspecting bystanders, unaware that anything is fake insurance cards.
    [Show full text]
  • Jenner & Block Practice Series | RICO: a Guide to Civil RICO
    PRACTICE SERIES RICO A Guide to Civil RICO Litigation in Federal Courts EDITORS Reid J. Schar E.K. McWilliams Philip B. Sailer © Copyright 2021 Jenner & Block LLP. Jenner & Block is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. JENNER & BLOCK LLP OFFICES ▪ 353 North Clark Street Chicago, Illinois 60654-3456 Firm: 312 222-9350 Fax: 312 527-0484 ▪ 25 Old Broad Street London EC2N 1HQ United Kingdom Firm: +44 (0) 330 060 5400 Fax: +44 (0) 330 060 5499 ▪ 633 West 5th Street, Suite 3600 Los Angeles, California 90071-2054 Firm: 213 239-5100 Fax: 213 239-5199 ▪ 919 Third Avenue, 37th Floor New York, New York 10022-3908 Firm: 212 891-1600 Fax: 212 891-1699 ▪ 455 Market Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94105-2453 Firm: 628 267-6800 Fax: 628 267-6859 ▪ 1099 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20001-4412 Firm: 202 639-6000 Fax: 202 639-6066 WEBSITE: www.jenner.com © 2021 Jenner & Block LLP. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide general information on legal matters. Transmission is not intended to create and receipt does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication. The attorney responsible for this publication is Reid J. Schar. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING Contributing Editors & Acknowledgments Contributing Editors: The following current and former Jenner & Block attorneys and law clerks made important contributions to the 2021 RICO Guide: Shanna Rifkin, David Sussman, Jason Bradford, Carla Weiss, Seth Agata, James Malysiak, Carissa Coze, Alexander Cottingham, Jeremy Ershow, William Von Hoene, Matthew Feldhaus, Amit Patel, Jing Xun Quek, William Williams, Eric Fleddermann, Theo Lesczynski, Deepthika Appuhamy, Emily Merrifield, Sara Crook, Rachel Foster, Margaret Hlousek, Brittany Lamb, Anna Margasinska, Adam Caldwell, Michael DeMar, Alexander Ghantous, Pejman Yousefzadeh, Garrett Fitzsimmons, Charles Carlin, Karolina Bartosik, and Jocelyn Sitton.
    [Show full text]
  • 61-2G-306 Renewal of License, Certification, Or Registration. (1) To
    Utah Code 61-2g-306 Renewal of license, certification, or registration. (1) To renew a license, certification, or registration, before the license, certification, or registration expires, the holder of the license, certification, or registration shall submit to the division in compliance with procedures set through the concurrence of the division and the board: (a) an application for renewal; (b) a fee established by the division and the board, in accordance with Section 63J-1-504; and (c) evidence in the form prescribed by the division of having completed the continuing education requirements for renewal specified in this chapter. (2) (a) A license, certification, or registration expires if it is not renewed on or before its expiration date. (b) For a period of 30 days after the expiration date, a license, certification, or registration may be reinstated upon: (i) payment of a renewal fee and a late fee determined through the concurrence of the division and the board; and (ii) satisfying the continuing education requirements specified in Section 61-2g-307. (c) After the 30-day period described in Subsection (2)(b), and until six months after the expiration date, a license, certification, or registration may be reinstated by: (i) paying a renewal fee and a reinstatement fee determined through the concurrence of the division and the board; and (ii) satisfying the continuing education requirements specified in Section 61-2g-307. (d) After the six-month period described in Subsection (2)(c), and until one year after the expiration date, a
    [Show full text]
  • 715A.2 Forgery. 1. a Person Is Guilty of Forgery If, with Intent to Defraud Or
    1 FORGERY AND RELATED FRAUDULENT CRIMINAL ACTS, §715A.2 715A.2 Forgery. 1. A person is guilty of forgery if, with intent to defraud or injure anyone, or with knowledge that the person is facilitating a fraud or injury to be perpetrated by anyone, the person does any of the following: a. Alters a writing of another without the other’s permission. b. Makes, completes, executes, authenticates, issues, or transfers a writing so that it purports to be the act of another who did not authorize that act, or so that it purports to have been executed at a time or place or in a numbered sequence other than was in fact the case, or so that it purports to be a copy of an original when no such original existed. c. Utters a writing which the person knows to be forged in a manner specified in paragraph “a” or “b”. d. Possesses a writing which the person knows to be forged in a manner specified in paragraph “a” or “b”. 2. a. Forgery is a class “D” felony if the writing is or purports to be any of the following: (1) Part of an issue of money, securities, postage or revenue stamps, or other instruments issued by the government. (2) Part of an issue of stock, bonds, credit-sale contracts as defined in section 203.1, or other instruments representing interests in or claims against any property or enterprise. (3) A check, draft, or other writing which ostensibly evidences an obligation of the person who has purportedly executed it or authorized its execution.
    [Show full text]
  • FOOD LAW and POLICY CAREER GUIDE October 2017 Researched and Prepared By
    FOOD LAW AND POLICY CAREER GUIDE October 2017 Researched and Prepared by: Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic Emily Broad Leib, Director Christina Rice, Clinical Fellow Teresa Pulaski, Intern [email protected] http://www.chlpi.org/flpc The Food Law and Policy Clinic of Harvard Law School (FLPC), a division of the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation, was established in 2010 to link Harvard Law School students with opportunities to work with clients and communities on various food law and policy issues. The FLPC provides legal and policy guidance to a range of clients seeking to increase access to healthy foods, assist small and sustainable farmers in breaking into new commercial markets, and reduce waste of healthy, wholesome food, while educating law students about ways to use law and policy to impact the food system. The FLPC engages a strong policy orientation as well as substantive expertise in the food system to assist a range of federal, state, and local clients around the world in understanding the legal and policy regimes that apply to food production and sales. Harvard Food Law Society Alex Leone, Tommy Tobin, Lisa Gluckstein, & Steven Gonzalez www.law.harvard.edu/orgs/foodlaw/ The Harvard Food Law Society fosters on-campus dialogue on issues in food law and policy. Food- related issues often implicate broader questions of public health, environmental sustainability, income inequality, economic development, and human rights. The Food Law Society supports a network of students, professionals, and food-lovers who support a healthier, more equitable food system. Members participate in clinical research projects and conferences, host speakers, take trips and collaborate with groups throughout the University and the world in their effort to address food issues.
    [Show full text]