United States v. Cain

1 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Rico

    Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.Don SamuelSeptember 1, 2015

    It is enough to show at least two predicate acts of racketeering activity that are related and that amount to or threaten the likelihood of continued criminal activity.United States v. Cain, 671 F.3d 271 (2d Cir. 2012)The district court erred in failing to instruct the jury that, in order to establish a “pattern of racketeering” for the purposes of securing a RICO conviction, the government is required to show that the predicate acts were related to one another and threatened continued criminal activity. This “horizontal relatedness” requirement is essential to proving a “pattern.”