Sedima v. Imrex Company, Inc, No. 84-648

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtWHITE
Citation105 S.Ct. 3275,473 U.S. 479,87 L.Ed.2d 346
Decision Date01 July 1985
Docket NumberNo. 84-648
PartiesSEDIMA, S.P.R.L., Petitioner, v. IMREX COMPANY, INC., et al

473 U.S. 479
105 S.Ct. 3275
87 L.Ed.2d 346
SEDIMA, S.P.R.L., Petitioner,

v.

IMREX COMPANY, INC., et al.

No. 84-648.
Argued April 17, 1985.
Decided July 1, 1985.
Syllabus

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, which is directed at "racketeering activity"—defined in § 1961(1) to encompass, inter alia, acts "indictable" under specific federal criminal provisions, including mail and wire fraud—provides in § 1964(c) for a private civil action to recover treble damages by any person injured in his business or property "by reason of a violation of section 1962." Section 1962(c) prohibits conducting or participating in the conduct of an enterprise "through a pattern of racketeering activity." Petitioner corporation, which had entered into a joint business venture with respondent company and which believed that it was being cheated by alleged overbilling, filed suit in Federal District Court, asserting, inter alia, RICO claims against respondent company and two of its officers (also respondents) under § 1964(c) for alleged violations of § 1962(c), based on predicate acts of mail and wire fraud. The court dismissed the RICO counts for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that under § 1964(c) a RICO plaintiff must allege a "racketeering injury"—an injury "caused by an activity which RICO was designed to deter," not just an injury occurring as a result of the predicate acts themselves—and that the complaint was also defective for not alleging that respondents had been convicted of the predicate acts of mail and wire fraud, or of a RICO violation.

Held:

1. There is no requirement that a private action under § 1964(c) can proceed only against a defendant who has already been convicted of a predicate act or of a RICO violation. A prior-conviction requirement is not supported by RICO's history, its language, or considerations of policy. To the contrary, every indication is that no such requirement exists. Accordingly, the fact that respondents have not been convicted under RICO or the federal mail and wire fraud statutes does not bar petitioner's action. Pp. ---- - ----.

2. Nor is there any requirement that in order to maintain a private action under § 1964(c) the plaintiff must establish a "racketeering injury," not merely an injury resulting from the predicate acts themselves. A reading of the statute belies any "racketeering injury" requirement. If the defendant engages in a pattern of racketeering activity in a man-

Page 480

ner forbidden by § 1962, and the racketeering activities injure the plaintiff in his business or property, the plaintiff has a claim under § 1964(c). There is no room in the statutory language for an additional, amorphous "racketeering injury" requirement. Where the plaintiff alleges each element of a violation of § 1962, the compensable injury necessarily is the harm caused by predicate acts sufficiently related to constitute a pattern, for the essence of the violation is the commission of those acts in connection with the conduct of an enterprise. Pp. 493-500.

741 F.2d 482 (CA2 1984), reversed and remanded.

Franklyn H. Snitow, New York City, for petitioner.

Richard Jordan Eisenberg, for respondents.

Page 481

Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

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, provides a private civil action to recover treble damages for injury "by reason of a violation of" its substantive provisions. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). The initial dormancy of this provision and its recent greatly increased utilization 1 are now familiar history.2 In response to what it perceived to be misuse of civil RICO by private plaintiffs, the court below construed § 1964(c) to permit private actions only against defendants who had been convicted on criminal charges, and only where there had occurred a "racketeering injury." While we understand the court's concern over the consequences of an unbridled reading of the statute, we reject both of its holdings.

I

RICO takes aim at "racketeering activity," which it defines as any act "chargeable" under several generically described state criminal laws, any act "indictable" under numerous specific federal criminal provisions, including mail and wire fraud, and any "offense" involving bankruptcy or securities

Page 482

fraud or drug-related activities that is "punishable" under federal law. § 1961(1).3 Section 1962, entitled "Prohibited Activities," outlaws the use of income derived from a "pattern of racketeering activity" to acquire an interest in or establish an enterprise engaged in or affecting interstate commerce; the acquisition or maintenance of any interest in an enterprise "through" a pattern of racketeering activity;

Page 483

conducting or participating in the conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity; and conspiring to violate any of these provisions.4

Congress provided criminal penalties of imprisonment, fines, and forfeiture for violation of these provisions. § 1963. In addition, it set out a far-reaching civil enforcement scheme, § 1964, including the following provision for private suits:

"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 district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee." § 1964(c).

In 1979, petitioner Sedima, a Belgian corporation, entered into a joint venture with respondent Imrex Co. to provide electronic components to a Belgian firm. The buyer was to order parts through Sedima; Imrex was to obtain the parts

Page 484

in this country and ship them to Europe. The agreement called for Sedima and Imrex to split the net proceeds. Imrex filled roughly $8 million in orders placed with it through Sedima. Sedima became convinced, however, that Imrex was presenting inflated bills, cheating Sedima out of a portion of its proceeds by collecting for nonexistent expenses.

In 1982, Sedima filed this action in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint set out common-law claims of unjust enrichment, conversion, and breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and a constructive trust. In addition, it asserted RICO claims under § 1964(c) against Imrex and two of its officers. Two counts alleged violations of § 1962(c), based on predicate acts of mail and wire fraud. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1961(1)(B). A third count alleged a conspiracy to violate § 1962(c). Claiming injury of at least $175,000, the amount of the alleged overbilling, Sedima sought treble damages and attorney's fees.

The District Court held that for an injury to be "by reason of a violation of section 1962," as required by § 1964(c), it must be somehow different in kind from the direct injury resulting from the predicate acts of racketeering activity. 574 F.Supp. 963 (1983). While not choosing a precise formulation, the District Court held that a complaint must allege a "RICO-type injury," which was either some sort of distinct "racketeering injury," or a "competitive injury." It found "no allegation here of any injury apart from that which would result directly from the alleged predicate acts of mail fraud and wire fraud," id., at 965, and accordingly dismissed the RICO counts for failure to state a claim.

A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. 741 F.2d 482 (1984). After a lengthy review of the legislative history, it held that Sedima's complaint was defective in two ways. First, it failed to allege an injury "by reason of a violation of section 1962." In the court's view,

Page 485

this language was a limitation on standing, reflecting Congress' intent to compensate victims of "certain specific kinds of organized criminality," not to provide additional remedies for already compensable injuries. Id., at 494. Analogizing to the Clayton Act, which had been the model for § 1964(c), the court concluded that just as an antitrust plaintiff must allege an "antitrust injury," so a RICO plaintiff must allege a "racketeering injury"—an injury "different in kind from that occurring as a result of the predicate acts themselves, or not simply caused by the predicate acts, but also caused by an activity which RICO was designed to deter." Id., at 496. Sedima had failed to allege such an injury.

The Court of Appeals also found the complaint defective for not alleging that the defendants had already been criminally convicted of the predicate acts of mail and wire fraud, or of a RICO violation. This element of the civil cause of action was inferred from § 1964(c)'s reference to a "violation" of § 1962, the court also observing that its prior-conviction requirement would avoid serious constitutional difficulties, the danger of unfair stigmatization, and problems regarding the standard by which the predicate acts were to be proved.

The decision below was one episode in a recent proliferation of civil RICO litigation within the Second Circuit 5 and

Page 486

in other Courts of Appeals.6 In light of the variety of approaches taken by the lower courts and the importance of the issues, we grant certiorari. 469 U.S. 1157, 105 S.Ct. 901, 83 L.Ed.2d 917 (1984). We now reverse.

II

As a preliminary matter, it is worth briefly reviewing the legislative history of the private treble damages action. RICO formed Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub.L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922. The civil remedies in the bill passed by the Senate, S. 30, were limited to injunctive actions by the United States and became §§ 1964(a), (b), and

Page 487

(d). Previous versions of the legislation, however, had provided for a private treble-damages action in exactly the terms ultimately adopted in §...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3819 practice notes
  • PHILADELPHIA RESERVE SUPPLY v. Nowalk & Associates, Civ. A. No. 91-0449.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • September 27, 1994
    ...Court of the United States held that the acts that make up the racketeering activity must be related. See Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496 n. 14, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 3285 n. 14, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985). Second, The Supreme Court held that for a pattern to exist there must be "cont......
  • U.S. v. Angiulo, Nos. 86-1331
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • November 7, 1989
    ...are necessary [to constitute a "pattern"], they may not be sufficient.' " Brief for Granito at 44 (quoting Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496 n. 14, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 3285 n. 14, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985)). Defendants further contend that the court "failed to direct the jury's atten......
  • California Pharmacy Management v. Zenith Ins., Case No. SACV09-0242 DOC (FMOx).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • November 5, 2009
    ...requires "(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity." Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479, 496, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985). In addition, to demonstrate a pattern of racketeering activity, Plaintiff must allege two predicate ......
  • Pell v. Weinstein, No. 3:CV-88-1905.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • March 20, 1991
    ..."person" engaged in conduct of an "enterprise" through a pattern of racketeering activity. See Sedima, S.P. R.L. v. Imrex Company, 473 U.S. 479, 500, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 3287, 87 L.Ed.2d 346, 361 In the Third Circuit, the culpable "person" and the "enterprise" must be separate and distinct enti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3806 cases
  • PHILADELPHIA RESERVE SUPPLY v. Nowalk & Associates, Civ. A. No. 91-0449.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • September 27, 1994
    ...Court of the United States held that the acts that make up the racketeering activity must be related. See Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496 n. 14, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 3285 n. 14, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985). Second, The Supreme Court held that for a pattern to exist there must be "cont......
  • U.S. v. Angiulo, Nos. 86-1331
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • November 7, 1989
    ...are necessary [to constitute a "pattern"], they may not be sufficient.' " Brief for Granito at 44 (quoting Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496 n. 14, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 3285 n. 14, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985)). Defendants further contend that the court "failed to direct the jury's atten......
  • California Pharmacy Management v. Zenith Ins., Case No. SACV09-0242 DOC (FMOx).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • November 5, 2009
    ...requires "(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity." Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479, 496, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985). In addition, to demonstrate a pattern of racketeering activity, Plaintiff must allege two predicate ......
  • Pell v. Weinstein, No. 3:CV-88-1905.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • March 20, 1991
    ..."person" engaged in conduct of an "enterprise" through a pattern of racketeering activity. See Sedima, S.P. R.L. v. Imrex Company, 473 U.S. 479, 500, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 3287, 87 L.Ed.2d 346, 361 In the Third Circuit, the culpable "person" and the "enterprise" must be separate and distinct enti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • RICO: A Primer
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • January 31, 2022
    ...A "pattern" may exist where any combination of two or more offenses occurred within a period of time. In Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (1985), the Supreme Court held that the RICO pattern element requires more than merely proving two predicate acts of racketeering. Rather, pro......
  • RICO: A Primer
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • January 31, 2022
    ...A "pattern" may exist where any combination of two or more offenses occurred within a period of time. In Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (1985), the Supreme Court held that the RICO pattern element requires more than merely proving two predicate acts of racketeering. Rather, pro......
2 books & journal articles
  • New Wine in Old Bottles: Distorting the Antiquities Act to Aggrandize Executive Power
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 48-4, April 2018
    • April 1, 2018
    ...and “the non-delegation doctrine is not violated.”). 62. Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917); Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (1985); United States v. Granderson, 511 U.S. 39 (1994); Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 454 (1989). 63. 30 Stat. 11, ......
  • Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 45 Nbr. 2, July 2022
    • July 1, 2022
    ...the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong. (2020) (statement of William Barr, Attorney General). (319.) See Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 500 (1985); Katie Shepherd, Portland Protesters Broke ICE Building Windows. Police Responded with Tear Gas., WASH. POST (Aug. 20, 2020), h......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT