Viability of RICO Defence Practice

The memorandum discusses the viability of maintaining a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) criminal defense practice at present. It highlights the importance of this specialized field in legal practice, citing the high stakes involved in defending against RICO charges. The analysis suggests that it would be beneficial for firms to retain this section of practice due to its future prospects being good.

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