Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Captain Jack who wrote (77615)	6/9/2002 11:37:34 PM
From: eims2000	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

Being associated is not enough in any type of law, you must have participated in the alleged crimes. And ignorance is not an excuse for committing a crime, but ignorance of someone else's alleged crime is nothing. Nice try.

To: Captain Jack who wrote (77615)	6/9/2002 11:48:46 PM
From: Sword	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

I have read the law. Have you? Read this and understand it: Message 17517324 -Sword

To: Captain Jack who wrote (77615)	6/10/2002 7:25:17 AM
From: Bocor	Respond to of 122087

Simply performing services for an enterprise, even with knowledge of the enterprise's illicit nature, is not enough to subject an individual to liability under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO); instead, the individual must have participated in the operation and management of the enterprise itself. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1962(c). Broad construction of the conspiracy provision of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) should not be used by the courts to criminalize mere association with an enterprise, and thus, in order to plead a viable conspiracy claim, a plaintiff must allege that a defendant agreed to the objective of a violation of RICO. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1962(d). In Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170, 113 S.Ct. 1163, 122 L.Ed.2d 525 (1993), the Supreme Court set forth clearly the sort of facts a plaintiff must allege to support the "conduct" element of a RICO charge. The Court held that, in order to satisfy the "conduct" element of § 1962(c), a plaintiff must allege that the defendant "participated in the operation or management of the enterprise itself," and that the defendant played "some part in directing the enterprise's affairs." Id. at 179, 183, 113 S.Ct. 1163 . In short, mere participation in the activities of the enterprise is insufficient; the defendant must participate in the operation or management of the enterprise.