Abstract
Crimes have been evolving over time to become more sophisticated. While law enforcement agencies have equally enhanced their capabilities so as to deal effectively with criminals, other developments have also taken place so as to aid in the all-important task of bring perpetrators of various criminal acts to book. One such development has been through the enactment of various legislation, which seeks to among other things, enhance the efficiency of the law enforcement agencies and officers. Indeed, as the nature of crime has changed over time, the concerned authorities have enacted better laws or revised existing laws so as to provide law enforcement officers with the necessary tools to effectively discharge their duties. It must not be forgotten that a law enforcement officer’s actions must be founded in law. It is therefore important to ensure that the laws in place enable or facilitate the work of law enforcement officers. It would certainly be unwise to have in place laws that hamper law enforcement officers from effectively discharging their mandate. One such law that has greatly facilitated the fight against crime is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, simply referred to as RICO. This submission will proceed to provide a lucid exposition of what RICO is and how investigators use RICO. The article will also highlight how investigators used RICO against Hell’s Angels outlaw motorcycle club.
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is one of the federal laws of the United States which seeks to tackle organized crime. While the Act has several aims, its principal purpose has been identified as provision of much broader criminal sanctions for any acts or omission that are committed in furtherance of the objectives of a criminal organization which is continuing in existence. In addition, despite the fact that the Act by and large targets criminal offences, it provides for civil cause of action in instances where the acts in question were performed in furtherance of the common objectives of a criminal organization which is continuing in existence. As the name suggests the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act targets the offence of racketeering and other offences related to or flowing from it. Perhaps it would be important to outline as plainly as possible the offence of racketeering. Racketeering has been defined as the crime of making money from illegal activities. It is important to note that what constitutes illegal activities will vary from country to country as different countries have different laws on what activities are legal and which ones fall outside the law. Put differently, the activities that may amount to racketeering in the United States may not amount to racketeering in another country.
A person who benefits from the crime of racketeering is referred to as a racketeer. The RICO Act targets a much broader area as it targets both racketeers and organizations that are corrupt. In other words, the RICO Act seeks to provide a nexus between racketeers influenced organizations and corrupt organizations. By so doing, it equips law enforcement agencies with an invaluable tool in tackling both sets of crime which more often than not are usually interrelated; perhaps even intertwined. The RICO Act provides that law enforcement agencies may prosecute or charge the ringleaders of a criminal organization for offences which they may not have directly committed. All that is required to commence a prosecution against leaders of such organizations is reasonable suspicion or proof that they gave orders to other persons to commit such crimes, or that they in any way facilitated the commission of such crimes. This provision of the RICO Act is of immense significance. Its profound significance arises due to the fact that it seals one of the loopholes that were used by leaders of criminal organizations to escape or deny criminal culpability. The loophole that existed was that provided a person was not actually involved in the commission of a crime, they would be exempt from the trial even if they had an indirect although significant role in the crime. Consequently, before the enactment of the RICO Act, it was almost impossible to successfully bring any of the leaders of criminal organizations to a trial. This was because they never participated in the actual commission of the crimes. All they did was to give orders for the commission of the crimes or to facilitate the commission of such crimes. Given these circumstances, the enactment of the RICO Act was a most welcome development. This is primarily because it is an Act which seeks to strike right at the root rather than the branches of the problem.
The RICO Act was enacted pursuant to Section 901 (a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. While the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 sought to provide law enforcement officers with a legislative tool to tackle organized crime, it was found to be inadequate. This was primarily because it did not have any express provisions that could have enabled law enforcement officers to prosecute persons who were not directly involved in the commission of crimes by criminal organizations. Subsequently, it was impossible under the Act to prosecute the leaders of criminal organizations as in most instances; they never participated in the actual commission of the criminal acts. Their role, though very significant, was restricted to issuing orders to subordinate members of the organization to carry out the criminal acts. The expansion of Section 901 (a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 through the enactment of the RICO Act sought to provide a permanent cure to the loophole highlighted above.
RICO has been a great legislative tool in facilitating the work of investigators. Indeed, all the investigators need to do under RICO is to establish that the leaders of criminal organizations gave the orders for the carrying out of criminal activities or that they in any way facilitated the carrying out of criminal activities by the members of their organizations. While this may be a complex task, a juxtaposition of the scenario before and after the enactment of the RICO Act suggests that it may be easier for the investigators to establish that the leaders of criminal organizations gave orders to their members to commit crimes than to for them (investigators) to establish that the ring leaders of the criminal organizations actually participated in the commission of the crimes. Since its enactment, investigators have successfully used the RICO Act for various purposes. While it was originally used in prosecutions against the Mafia and others who were active participants of organized crime, its use has been extended to hitherto restricted areas where it was not applicable. Some of the areas where investigators use the RICO Act include; money laundering, extortion, drug trafficking, murder, kidnapping and gambling among many others.
The case of Hell’s Angels motorcycle outriders could be used to illustrate how investigators used the RICO Act against members of the organization. In 1979, investigators sought to prosecute Sonny Barger and other members of the Hell’s Angel Organization under the RICO Act. This gave rise to the famous case of States v. Barger where the prosecution was unsuccessful in its attempt to illustrate a behavioral pattern so as to be able to successfully convict Barger and other members of Hell’s angels. In the case, the jury noted that the prosecution and by extension the investigators had not established sufficient evidence to prove that the leaders of Hell’s angel, among them Sonny Barger were culpable for the criminal acts of its members. However, more recently, investigators used RICO to successfully prosecute three members of Hell’s Angel who were found guilty of the offence of a conspiracy to commit RICO. This conspiracy was nuanced with numerous criminal counts which included but were not limited to robbery, murder and extortion. The three accused persons in the case received various sentences which included life imprisonment for one who was found guilty of murder, a twenty year sentence for one who was found guilty of RICO and Conspiracy to commit RICO and another twenty year sentence for one who was found guilty of Conspiracy to Commit RICO and Attempted Interference with Commerce by Threats and Violence. The Hell’s Angel case is strong persuasive authority that the enactment of RICO was a necessary step in as far as the fight against organized crime is concerned.
References
Bezzina, C. (2011). The Job: Fighting Crime from the Frontline. Richmont: Slattery Media Group.
Hope, D. (2013). Racketeering After Morrison: Extraterrestrial Application of Civil RICO. North Wester UNiversuty Law Review, 1375-1390.
Olson, E. L., Shark, D. A., & Seleee, A. (2010). Shared Responsibility: U.S- Mexico Policy Options for Confronting Organized Crimes. San Diego: Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars.
Toner, G. A. (2009). New Ways of THinking Abpout Old Crimes: Prosecuting Corruption and Organized Criminal Groups Engaged in Labour-Management Racketeering. Journal of Financial Crime, 41-59.
Townsend, J., & Graham, I. (2009). Fighting Crime: Why Science Matters. London: Pearson Education.
