18 U.S.C.A. § 1964 Page 1 Effective:[See Text Amendments] United States Code Annotated Currentness Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure (Refs & Annos) Part I. Crimes (Refs & Annos) Chapter 96. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (Refs & Annos) § 1964. Civil remedies (a) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section 1962 of this chapter by issuing appropriate orders, including, but not limited to: ordering any person to divest himself of any interest, direct or indirect, in any enterprise; imposing reasonable restrictions on the future activ- ities or investments of any person, including, but not limited to, prohibiting any person from engaging in the same type of endeavor as the enterprise engaged in, the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or ordering dissolution or reorganization of any enterprise, making due provision for the rights of innocent per- sons. (b) The Attorney General may institute proceedings under this section. Pending final determination thereof, the court may at any time enter such restraining orders or prohibitions, or take such other actions, including the ac- ceptance of satisfactory performance bonds, as it shall deem proper. (c) Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee, except that no person may rely upon any conduct that would have been actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities to establish a violation of section 1962. The exception contained in the preceding sentence does not apply to an action against any person that is criminally convicted in connection with the fraud, in which case the statute of limitations shall start to run on the date on which the conviction becomes final. (d) A final judgment or decree rendered in favor of the United States in any criminal proceeding brought by the United States under this chapter shall estop the defendant from denying the essential allegations of the criminal offense in any subsequent civil proceeding brought by the United States. CREDIT(S) (Added Pub.L. 91-452, Title IX, § 901(a), Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 943; amended Pub.L. 98-620, Title IV, § 402 (24)(A), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3359; Pub.L. 104-67, Title I, § 107, Dec. 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 758.) © 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1964 Page 2 HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES Revision Notes and Legislative Reports 1970 Acts. House Report No. 91-1549, see 1970 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 4007. 1984 Acts. House Report No. 98-1062, see 1984 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 5708. 1995 Acts. Senate Report No. 104-98 and House Conference Report No. 104-369, see 1995 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 679. Amendments 1995 Amendments. Subsec. (c). Pub.L. 104-67, § 107, inserted exception providing that no person may rely upon fraudulent conduct which would have been criminally actionable under section 1962 of this title as the basis for a civil suit under this section, unless the person who committed such fraudulent conduct has been crim- inally convicted, in which case the statute of limitations runs from the date the conviction becomes final. 1984 Amendments. Subsec. (b). Pub.L. 98-620 struck out provision that in any action brought by the United States under this section, the court had to proceed as soon as practicable to the hearing and determination there- of. Effective and Applicability Provisions 1995 Acts. Amendment of this section by section 107 of Pub.L. 104-67 shall not affect or apply to any private action, arising under subchapter I (section 77a et seq.) of chapter 2A of Title 15, Commerce and Trade, or chapter 2B (section 78a et seq.) of Title 15, commenced before and pending on Dec. 22, 1995, see section 108 of Pub.L. 104-67, set out as a note under section 77l of Title 15. 1984 Acts. Amendment by Pub.L. 98-620 not to apply to cases pending on Nov. 8, 1984, see section 403 of Pub.L. 98-620, set out as a note under section 1657 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure. Rule of Construction Nothing in Pub.L. 104-67 or the amendment to this section by section 107 of Pub.L. 104-67 shall be deemed to create or ratify any implied private right of action, or to prevent the Commission, by rule or regulation, from re- stricting or otherwise regulating private actions under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, see section 203 of Pub.L. 104-67, set out as a note under section 78j-1 of this Title 15, Commerce and Trade. CROSS REFERENCES © 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1964 Page 3 Service of process, see 18 USCA § 1965. LAW REVIEW COMMENTARIES Adrift at sea: The muddled relationship between civil RICO and the maritime law. Robert M. Jarvis, 12 Tul.Mar.L.J. 111 (1987). Arbitration of customer-securities broker disputes. James J. Moyland and Laren Ukman, 75 Ill.B.J. 374 (1987). Assessment of derivative RICO actions by stockholders, limited partners and trust beneficiaries. Thomas J. Bamonte, 21 Loy.U.Chi.L.J. 153 (1989). RICO at the border: Interpreting Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp. and its effect on immigration enforce- ment. Note, 64 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1243 (Summer 2007). A trial lawyer's guide: Everything you always wanted to know about RICO before your case was dis- missed. Mark E. DuVal, 1986, 12 Wm.Mitchell L.Rev. 291. Broadening the scope of Civil RICO. Note, 20 U.S.F.L.Rev. 339 (1986). Causation and civil RICO standing: When is a plaintiff injured “by reason of” a RICO violation? Laura Ginger, 64 St.John's L.Rev. 849 (1990). Civil RICO, protesters, and the First Amendment: A constitutional combination. 60 Mo.L.Rev. 239 (1995). Civil RICO and intellectual property after Sedima. Emmette F. Hale, III, 56 Miss.L.J. 567 (1986). Civil RICO and the prior criminal conviction requirement: Has the second circuit drawn the net too tightly? Diana K. Carey, 60 Wash.L.Rev. 461 (1985). Civil RICO comes to Texas: A review of civil RICO jurisprudence in the Fifth Circuit and in the Federal District Courts of Texas. David A. Furlow, 37 Baylor L.Rev. 841 (1985). Civil RICO is a misnomer: The need for criminal procedural protections in actions under 18 U.S.C.A. § 1964. Note, 100 Harv.L.Rev. 1288 (1987). Civil RICO--Limitations in limbo. Robert E. Wood, 21 Willamette L.Rev. 683 (1985). Civil RICO's cause of action: The landscape after Sedima. Douglas E. Abrams, 12 Tul.Mar.L.J. 19 (1987). Civil RICO: Should private plaintiffs be granted equitable relief? Kristi Rae Culver, 18 Pac.L.J. 1199 (1987). Civil RICO: The insurers fight back. Arnold D. Fielkow and Stephen P. Eisenberg, 21 Tort & Ins.L.J. 1 (1985). Civil RICO--the scope of coverage after Sedima, John E. Grenier and Sally S. Reilly, 47 Ala.Law. 260 © 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1964 Page 4 (1986). Civil RICO--the Supreme Court opens the door to commercial litigation. William H. Rivoir, III, 90 Com.L.J. 621 (1985). Clarifying a “pattern” of confusion: A multi-factor approach to civil RICO's pattern requirement. Note, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1745 (1988). Clarifying civil RICO: Sedima v. Imrex, Co., Inc. Comment (1986) 7 U.Bridgeport L.Rev. 189. Closing the RICO floodgates in the aftermath of Sedima. Frederick C. Boucher, 31 N.Y.L.Sch.L.Rev. 133 (1986). Comment, Civil RICO after Sedima: An exercise in restraint. Jeffery Nelson Luthi, 22 Land & Water L.Rev. 153 (1987). Concurrent jurisdiction over federal civil RICO claims: Is it workable? An analysis of Tafflin v. Levitt. Yolanda Eleni Stefanou, 64 St.John's L.Rev. 849 (1990). Concurrent state court jurisdiction in private civil RICO actions after Sedima v. Imrex. Jonathan D. Mor- genstern, 15 Barrister 51 (Fall 1988). Congress responds to Sedima: Is there a contract out on civil RICO? Comment, 19 Loy.L.A.L.Rev. 851 (1986). Crimes by health care providers. Pamela H. Bucy, 1996 U.Ill.L.Rev. 589. Den of inequity: The case for equitable doctrines in Rule 10b-5 cases. Comment, 81 Cal.L.Rev. 1587 (1993). Effect of RICO on maritime arbitration. William P. Byrne, 12 Tul.Mar.L.J. 77 (1987). Employers' RICO liability for the wrongful discharge of their employees. Laura Ginger, 68 Neb.L.Rev. 673 (1989). Enterprise requirement: Getting to the heart of civil RICO. Comment, 1988 Wis.L.Rev. 663 (1988). Equitable relief under civil RICO: Reflections on Religious Technology Center v. Wollersheim: Will civil RICO be effective only against white-collar crime? G. Robert Blakey and Scott D. Cessar, 62 Notre Dame L.Rev. 526 (1987). Exclusion of criminals from union post. John E. Sanchez. (1985) 12 W.St.U.L.Rev. 689. Frontier of RICO standing: Interpreting RICO's conspiracy provision to realize congress' goal of creating a powerful crime-fighting weapon. 21 J.Legis. 147 (1995). Hobbs Act and RICO: A remedy for greenmail? Note, 66 Tex.L.Rev. 647 (1988). Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corp.: Standing to sue under Section 1464(c) of RICO for the se- © 2013 Thomson Reuters.