[Labyrinthos]

Having litigated several civil RICO cases over the years (some successful, some not), I have a pretty good understanding of standing and proximate cause, both generally and as applied to RICO claims. The general principle that you reference from the Baidsch opinion may seem simple and straight forward, but I can assure you that its application to a particular set of facts is a complex process that is often problematic.

The concept of "standing" is not unique to RICO. To have standing to sue in federal court, the plaintiff must have suffered harm that is separate and distinct from the harm suffered by the public at large. For this reason, mere taxpayer status rarely provides standing to sue in federal court because the plaintiff has not suffered harm that is separate and distinct from the harm suffered by taxpayers as a whole.

In order to have standing within the context of a civil RICO claim, the plaintiff must have been the intended victim of the racketeering activity. Suppose, for example, that I own a pub next to a social club where gangsters are known to hang out and engage in racketeering activity, but they have never specifically directed their racketeering activity towards me. The gangsters sometimes eat and drink in my pub, but because they are known to engage in murder, extortion, arson, bribery, robbery, illegal gambling, and narcotics trafficking, and other racketeering activity, my other customers feel uncomfortable and so they stop coming in and I lose money. Even though the racketeering activity has clearly harmed my business, I do not have standing to commence a civil RICO suit because I am not the intended victim of the racketeering activity.

In addition to standing, the plaintiff must show that the racketeering activity is the proximate cause of the injury to its business or property. Proximate cause requires that the injury to the plaintiffs business was not only the result of racketeering activity, but that the injury was the intended or foreseeable result of such activity. Although proximate cause and standing are often tied together, they are distinct elements of the RICO claim in that standing refers to the intended victim and proximate cause refers to the intended or foreseeable result.

[MV=PY]

Very interesting. Thanks much for your insight and for sharing your experience!

It makes me wonder WHO can go after the Clintons.

Maybe the question is: Who (legally) is harmed when a government employee or pol enriches themselves by selling access or US resources?

And what laws did they break?

It’s pretty clear that their non-profits stink. How can they be taken down?