Replies

The Supreme Court in H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989) then set forth the “relationship” plus “continuity” requirements in order to find a Pattern Of Racketeering Activity. Regarding relationship, the Court stated that “a pattern is an arrangement or order of things or activity,” it is not the number of predicates but the relationship that they bear to each other or to some external organizing principle that renders them “ordered” or arranged. H.J. Inc., at 238, emphasis added.

The Court in H.J. Inc. also pointed to the legislative history of RICO which indicates that Congress intended RICO to cover the diversified criminal activities of organized crime.

Thus, it is not necessary to prove that the racketeering acts always be similar in nature or directly related to each other, but rather a PORA may be found if the predicate acts are related to the activities of the alleged enterprise. The racketeering acts may be found to be related to the activities of the alleged enterprise by proof that (1) the racketeering acts furthered the goals of or benefitted the enterprise; (2) the enterprise or the defendant’s role in the enterprise enabled the defendant to commit, or facilitated the commission of, the racketeering acts, (3) the racketeering acts were committed at the behest of, or on behalf of, the enterprise, or (4) the racketeering acts had the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission.