The Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq., has, over the past few decades, become a potent weapon for plaintiffs, particularly for those seeking redress for financial and other frauds. The act owes much of its potency to its affording treble damages plus attorney fees for those injured by it. But a 2016 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court closed the door on civil Rico claims by foreign plaintiffs suffering injuries abroad. This article looks at cases in which the lower courts have scrambled to sort out what may be left of foreign-based civil RICO claims.

‘RJR Nabisco’

As the Supreme Court said in its 2016 decision in RJR Nabisco v. the European Community, 136 S. Ct. 2090, 2096 (June 30, 2016), “RICO is founded on the concept of racketeering activity,” which RICO defines as any one of a long list of state and federal criminal statutes, including mail fraud and wire fraud. RICO imposes criminal responsibility on those who engage in a “pattern” of racketeering violations in connection with the operation of an “enterprise.” RICO also permits private plaintiffs who have been “injured” through a violation of RICO to bring civil suits. As the statute states:

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 Court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit including a reasonable attorney’s fee … .” 18 USC 1964 (c). (emphasis added).