I believe they have a name for these types of actions in any other business with that many people involved in fradulent acts. Something like racketeering with acts possibly violating common law fraud and deceit and plenty more. Imagine ML defending a RICO action. Happened to PNC bank. Wouldn't think it could be good for business.
legalaction.com
Happens to other big business:
insure.com
from above link:
"The RICO act — passed in 1970 — was written to prosecute organized-crime syndicates, but there are provisions for civil action. Over the years, the federal RICO statute has been broadened by the court system to address many aspects of big business and racketeering, but the courts have been vague about the actual powers the law carries, said Steven L. Kessler, counsel for the New York City-based law firm of Kessler and Kessler, which specializes in RICO case law. The plaintiff's use of the federal racketeering statute in this case stems from Humana's alleged systematic practice of the illegal discount agreement. The Supreme Court's decision to allow RICO's use in the Humana case could benefit not only the Nevada plaintiffs, but also policyholders nationwide."
and
"It can get very expensive for the defendant," Kessler told Insurance News Network. "Not only are [defendants] looking at paying triple damages, but they also have to pay for plaintiff attorney fees." Federal law requires that any institution found in violation of the RICO statute must pay three times the actual damages sought by the plaintiffs."
I find this one really interesting here:
federalcases.com
from above link:
"United States v. Killip, 819 F.2d 1542 (10th Cir. 1987):
The trial court instructed the jury in this conspiracy to violate RICO prosecution that the defendant must have agreed to commit two predicate offenses before he could be found guilty. Most circuits have held that the conspirator need only agree to join the enterprise, understanding that a co-conspirator would commit at least two predicate offenses. The Tenth Circuit simply holds that the trial court's instruction established the law of the case for purposes of this appeal. "
The conspirator need only agree to join the enterprise understanding that a co-conspirator would commit at least two predicate offenses. It looks like this could apply to what has happened with MIDL. (DF, TA, Brokerage, .......?)
Just some thoughts and opinions, who knows it could get interesting. |
