RICO Defense Practice Viability Report

This legal report examines the viability of maintaining a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) criminal defense practice. The report discusses the RICO Act's purpose, the types of offenses it covers (including bribery, theft, and terrorism), and the challenges of defending against RICO charges. The high cost of defending against RICO claims for businesses is highlighted, along with the high burden of proof on the defendant. The analysis concludes that due to the specialized nature of RICO law and the potential for high-paying cases, maintaining this area of practice is beneficial for law firms. The report cites sources such as the Federal Charges website and Jeffrey E. Grell's book on the RICO Act.

Memorandum
TO: Lead Attorney
FROM: Legal Assistant
RE: Future of the RICO Defence and the need to maintain criminal defence practice
DATE: November 03, 2016
ISSUE
Whether maintaining RICO criminal defence practice is viable at this point in time?
DISCUSSION
The RICO Act was enacted to destroy the mafia influence over business and
eliminate the “racketeering activity” caused due to the violation of federal laws.
Criminal offences which qualify under racketeering activities include 35 listed actions
specified under the US Code such as activities involving bribery, theft,
embezzlement, misappropriation, illegal immigration, committing acts of terrorism
etc. (Jeffrey E. Grell, 2003) While this is the highly specialized field in legal practice,
the stakes can be high as well. Defending the criminal charges is based on the
prosecution memorandum under s 1959 of the Act (Offices of the United States
Attormey), summarising that the defendants have committed incidents in furtherance
to the enterprise that they are involved in.
In order to prosecute, the investigators are required to establish existence of criminal
organization, and the practice of two or more RICO crimes. In practice, RICO is
applied to individuals, businesses, political protest groups and terrorist organization.
RICO claims against businesses can prove to be extremely costly as the penalty is
three times the amount lost besides having implications of punitive damages
(Federal Charges, 2016) as well.
ANALYSIS
In the light of the fact that RICO law practice is already a speciality for a firm like
ours, is likely to remain an active area of practice. RICO act places the highest
burden of proof on the defendant, whereby engaging a competent lawyer is
inevitable. It will be highly beneficial in cases where the companies are willing to
shell out big money to defend against RICO claims.
CONCLUSION
In the light of the above discussion, it would be beneficial for the firm like outs to
retain this section of practice as the future prospects of the defence division is good.

References
Federal Charges. (2016). RICO Conspiracy + Laws & Charges. Retrieved November 03, 2016, from
Federalcharges.com: https://www.federalcharges.com/understanding-rico-conspiracy-charges/
Jeffrey E. Grell, P. J. (2003). RICO: Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act. Minnesota:
Minnesota Institute of Legal Education.
Offices of the United States Attormey. (n.d.). 9-110.000 - Organized Crime And Racketeering.
Retrieved November 3, 2016, from United States Department of Justice:
https://www.justice.gov/usam/united-states-attorneys-manual