RICO Investigations: A Case Study
![handle is hein.journals/amcrimlr17 and id is 377 raw text is: RICO Investigations: A Case Study
GREGORY T. MAGARITY*
RICO has provided investigators and prosecutors with sophisticated
tools with which to combat intricate, ongoing criminal schemes. A
typical RICO investigation is proactive-forward-looking in nature;
and it requires close cooperation between the FBI and local U.S.
Attorneys' Offices. In this article, Mr. Magarity recounts the in-
vestigation of a case which he prosecuted. The narration demon-
strates the author's belief that a team approach is necessary for the
successful completion of a proactive investigation.
I. INTRODUCTION
Although the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Statute'
(RICO) was part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, it has only
been within the past few years that federal investigators and prosecutors have
begun to tap the overwhelming prosecutorial potential of this sleeping giant.2
The hesitation was due, in great part, to the initial uncertainty in the
interpretation and application of this revolutionary statute.3
The statutory power given federal investigators and prosecutors by RICO
is unprecedented. RICO is an extraordinary piece of legislation in that, unlike
virtually all other criminal statutes, it is not prohibitive in nature; it is
remedial.4 In fact, RICO does not substantively prohibit anything that is not
already prohibited elsewhere.5 To ensure that this distinction be recognized
by the courts, Congress declared that the provisions of RICO shall be
liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes.'6
* B.A. 1969, St. Joseph's University; J.D. 1972, Temple University School of Law; Partner, Wolf, Block,
Schorr and Solis-Cohen, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Assistant United States Attorney, Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (June 1973-January 1980); Acting First Assistant United States Attorney (January 1978-
July 1978); Chief of Special Prosecutions Divisions (July 1978-January 1980). Adjunct Professor of Law,
Temple School of Law, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In addition, the author has lectured on RICO at all
four Department of Justice Conferences on fraud and corruption. The views expressed herein, however, are
strictly those of the author and not those of the United States Department of Justice.
1. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968(1976).
2. See Atkinson, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968: Broadest of
the Federal Criminal Statutes, 69 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 1, 3 n.21 (1978) (contains the following
table of RICO cases reported since passage of the statute: 1970, 0; 1971, 0, 1972, 1; 1973, 2; 1974, 3; 1975,
7; 1976, 10; 1977, 14).
3. See generally Atkinson, supra note 2.
4. Address by Professor G. Robert Blakey, RICO: The Criminal Perspective, Temple University
School of Law Symposium on White Collar Crime (Dec. 1, 1979) [hereinafter Blakey Speech]. Professor
Blakey also stated that much of the misinterpretation of RICO is due to the inability, or unwillingness, of
some to recognize this distinction. Id.
5. The conduct which triggers a RICO offense is termed racketeering activity, and consists of
enumerated existing offenses already prohibited by federal or state law. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) (1976).
Professor Blakey has suggested that this focus on racketeering activity is a- primary advantage of the
statute in that [i]t lets you point out who all the individuals were, what their relationship was, to one
another. Blakey Speech, supra note 4.
6. Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-452, § 904, 84 Stat. 947 (1970). This mandate](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/amcrimlr17&div=24&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
RICO Investigations: A Case Study
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most