Section 1963 - Criminal penalties

8 Analyses of this statute by attorneys

  1. Rico - Forfeiture

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

    The First Circuit reversed the contempt judgment, however, at 433 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2005).United States v. Gotti, 155 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 1998)The RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. §1963(d)(1), does not authorize the pretrial, post-indictment seizure of substitute assets.United States v. Carson, 52 F.3d 1173 (2d Cir. 1995)The provision in 18 U.S.C. §1964 (civil RICO) which permits the court to disgorge an enterprise’s assets may not be used to remedy a past act of racketeering.

  2. Forfeiture - Criminal Procedure

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

    Thus, the decision to deny the return of the money was independent of the criminal case and amounted to a final order for appellate jurisdiction purposes.United States v. Gotti, 155 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 1998) A post-indictment pre-trial seizure is not authorized for substitute assets under 18 U.S.C. § 1963(d)(1)(A), because the pre-trial seizure provision only authorizes the seizure of proceeds, or property affording a source of interest over the enterprise. The substitute asset provision, §1963(m) does not define a species of proceeds, but, rather, property that may be seized, posttrial, in the event that proceeds are not available.

  3. Forfeiture - Procedure -- Seizure

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

    Rather, the only remedy is that the government should return any rents received or other proceeds realized from the property during the period of illegal seizure.United States v. Gotti, 155 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 1998) A post-indictment pre-trial seizure is not authorized for substitute assets under 18 U.S.C. § 1963(d)(1)(A), because the pre-trial seizure provision only authorizes the seizure of proceeds, or property affording a source of interest over the enterprise. The substitute asset provision, § 1963(m) does not define a species of proceeds, but, rather, property that may be seized, posttrial, in the event that proceeds are not available.

  4. RICO Requires Transfer of Title to Forfeit Trademarks: USA v. Mongol Nation, No. 19-50176 and 19-50190 (9th Cir. Jan. 6, 2023)

    Irwin IP LLPLisa HolubarFebruary 28, 2023

    government filed a second forfeiture application for the marks, requesting that defendant’s title to the trademarks be extinguished without transferring or vesting the trademarks with the United States, but the district court denied that application on the same grounds as its first denial. The Mongol Nation appealed the conviction, and the government appealed the second denial of forfeiture of the Mongol Nation trademarks.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the Mongol Nation’s conviction and the second denial of the forfeiture of the Mongol Nation trademarks. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the plain text of RICO rendered the government’s application a legal impossibility, and as such there was no need to decide whether the forfeiture of the trademark violated any constitutional provisions. The RICO statute provides that “all right, title, and interest in property [forfeitable under RICO] vests in the United States upon the commission of the act giving rise to forfeiture under this section.” 18 U.S.C. § 1963(c). The government’s contemplated method of forfeiture in its second forfeiture application (to extinguish the Defendant’s title but not vest those trademarks with the government) was crafted to avoid constitutional issues but as a result was facially inconsistent with RICO’s forfeiture provision: RICO required the trademarks be vested. As such, RICO provided no mechanism for forfeiture to occur without a transfer of title to the government. This case demonstrates a rare intersection of trademark law and criminal law. The Ninth Circuit’s decision leaves open the constitutional questions of whether a properly crafted forfeiture notice on trademarks would run afoul of free expression or the prohibition on excessive fines.

  5. First Circuit's New England Compounding Center Decisions Illustrate Reach of Federal Criminal Law

    Foley Hoag LLP - White Collar Law & InvestigationsMartin MurphyJuly 16, 2020

    The RICO statute permits the US Attorney’s office to ask the sentencing judge to impose an order of forfeiture, requiring the defendant to forfeit “any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds which the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from racketeering activity.” 18 U.S.C. §1963 (a)(3). The judge imposed an order of forfeiture on Cadden of $7,545,501, representing the amount Cadden earned from NECC’s criminal activities.

  6. Honeycutt v. United States: Forfeit Your Own Proceeds from Our Conspiracy

    Crowell & Moring LLPRichard L. BeizerJune 9, 2017

    Other federal forfeiture statutes contain similar language. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1963(a)(3) (criminal forfeiture statute for RICO violations); 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1) (civil forfeiture statute applicable to fraud and other crimes).When two or more defendants are held “jointly and severally liable” for a money judgment, each defendant may be held responsible for paying the full amount of the judgment. This doctrine is well-established in tort law, as it allows an innocent plaintiff to collect the full amount from a partially guilty party, rather than receiving nothing from an insolvent co-defendant.

  7. Landmark Trade Secret Law Establishes New Rights and Remedies

    Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLPJenny HarrisonApril 29, 2016

    [25] 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 (Prohibited activities). Under the RICO, criminal penalties are set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1963, and civil remedies are provided in 18 U.S.C. § 1964.[26] S. 1890, § 4.

  8. Forfeiture - Extent of Forfeiture; Proportionality; Excessive Fine

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

    The Eighth Amendment is not limited to criminal cases – it applies to any form of punishment and civil forfeiture amounts to punishment.Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544 (1993) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1963, the RICO in personam forfeiture procedure, the forfeiture of defendant’s entire adult entertainment inventory (including constitutionally protected material) was not violative of the First Amendment. However, the in personam nature of the forfeiture proceeding must pass muster under the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment.