American National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago v. Haroco, Inc

• Decision Date: 01 July 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84-822,84-822
• Citation: American National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago v. Haroco, Inc, 473 U.S. 606, 105 S.Ct. 3291, 87 L.Ed.2d 437 (1985)
• Parties: AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF CHICAGO, et al., Petitioners v. HAROCO, INC. et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

473 U.S. 606

105 S.Ct. 3291

87 L.Ed.2d 437

AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF CHICAGO, et al., Petitioners

v HAROCO, INC. et al.

No. 84-822.

July 1, 1985.

PER CURIAM.

This is a private civil action brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), Pub.L. 91-452, Title IX, 84 Stat. 941, as amended, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968. Respondents' complaint alleged that petitioner bank and several of its officers had fraudulently charged excessive interest rates on loans. The gist of the claim was that the bank had lied with regard to its prime rate and that the rate charged to respondents, which was pegged to the prime, was therefore too high. The complaint alleged that this scheme to defraud, which was carried on through the mails, violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), in that the mailings constituted a pattern of racketeering activity by means of which petitioners conducted, or participated in the conduct of, the bank. The only injuries alleged were the excessive interest charges themselves.

The District Court dismissed on the ground that the complaint did not state a claim. 577 F.Supp. 111 (ND Ill.1983). In its view, "to be cognizable under RICO [the injury] must be caused by a RICO violation and not simply by the commission of predicate offenses, such as acts of mail fraud." Id., at 114. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed in relevant part, 747 F.2d 384 (1984), rejecting various formulations of a requirement of a distinct RICO injury. We granted certiorari, 469 U.S. 1157, 105 S.Ct. 902, 83 L.Ed.2d 917 (1984), to consider the question whether a claim under § 1964(c) requires that the plaintiff have suffered damages by reason of the defendant's violation of § 1962 through the prescribed predicate offenses, or whether injury from those offenses alone is sufficient.^*

In their brief, and at oral argument, petitioners have argued primarily that respondents' complaint does not adequately allege a violation of § 1962(c). In particular, they assert that respondents have not shown that the enterprise was "conducted" through a pattern of racketeering activity. Petitioners do not appear to have made this precise argument below, it was not addressed by the Court of Appeals, and it quite clearly is not included in the question presented by their petition for certiorari. Although we have the authority to waive it, this Court's Rule 21.1(a) provides that only the question set forth in the petition for certiorari or fairly included therein will be considered, and we therefore do not consider petitioners' late-blooming argument that the complaint failed to allege a violation of § 1962(c).

To the extent petitioners' argument is a variation on the racketeering injury concept at issue in Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346, it is inconsistent with that decision. The submission that the injury must flow not from the predicate acts themselves but from the fact that they were performed as part of the conduct of an enterprise suffers from the same defects...