I.

Mayo, Lynch & Associates, Inc. v. Pollack, 351 N.J. Super. 486, 495 (App.Div. 2002) 1. Under the New Jersey statute, "racketeering activity" includes bribery, forgery, fraudulent practices and "all crimes defined in chapter 21 of Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes." N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1(1)(g) and (o). A "pattern of racketeering activity" requires "[e]ngaging in at least two incidents of racketeering conduct" that "embrace criminal conduct" and are interrelated. N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1(2)(d). Plaintiff contends that Pollack engaged in fraudulent practices in [***14] violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:21, which constituted a pattern of racketeering activity. 2. Under NJRICO, an "enterprise" includes HN4"any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity, and it includes illicit as well as licit enterprises and governmental as well as other entities." N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1(2)(c). 3. In State v. Ball, 141 N.J. 142, 175, 661 A.2d 251, cert. denied, sub nom. [**18] Mocco v. New Jersey, 516 U.S. 1075, 116 S. Ct. 779, 133 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1996), HN5the Court interpreting N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2c, held that a person is "employed by or associated with an enterprise" if the person has a position or a connection with the enterprise that enables the person to engage or participate in the enterprise's affairs. 4. The Court in Ball explained that "to conduct or participate in the affairs of an enterprise means to act purposefully and knowingly [*496] in the affairs of the enterprise in the sense of engaging in activities that seek to further, assist or help effectuate the goals of [***15] the enterprise." Ibid. The Court noted that managerial or supervisory activities were not necessary; participatory conduct was sufficient, as long as the person had the requisite intent. Ibid. 5. Under 18 U.S.C.A. 1962(c), unlike N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2(c), mere participation in the enterprise is insufficient; the actor must "participate in the operation or management of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity." Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170, 184, 113 S. Ct. 1163, 1172, 122 L. Ed. 2d 525, 539 (1993) (footnote omitted). The Court explained that "liability is not limited to those with primary responsibility for the enterprise's affairs," but "some part in directing the enterprise's affairs is required." 507 U.S. at 179, 113 S. Ct. at 1170, 122 L. Ed. 2d at 537. "[L]ower rung participants in the enterprise" could be involved in its management, and someone who exerts control over an enterprise might also operate or manage it. 507 U.S. at 184, 113 S. Ct. at 1173, 122 L. Ed. 2d at 540. a. Thus, under NJ law the threshold is much lower to find that an enterprise exists for RICO purposes. 6. Under 18 U.S.C.A. 1962(d), HN18"[i]t shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section." In Ball, supra, the Court, adopting the federal standard, said that HN19a RICO conspiracy had two elements: an agreement to conduct or participate in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise, and an agreement to the commission of at least two predicate

II. III.

acts. 141 N.J. at 176, 661 A.2d 251. The Court held that the defendant need not agree to personally commit the two predicate acts; the defendant's agreement that others will commit the acts is sufficient. Id. at 177-81, 661 A.2d 251. Since the decision in Ball, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the defendant's agreement [***29] to personally commit two overt acts is unnecessary. Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 63, 118 S. Ct. 469, 476, 139 L. Ed. 2d 352, 365 (1997). The Court [*504] explained that the RICO conspiracy provision omitted the requirement of an overt act and was thus "more comprehensive than the general conspiracy offense." 522 U.S. at 63, 118 S. Ct. at 476, 139 L. Ed. 2d at 365-66. The Court explained: HN20"A conspirator must intend to further an endeavor which, if completed, would satisfy all of the elements of a substantive criminal offense, but it suffices that he adopt the goal of furthering or facilitating the criminal endeavor." 522 U.S. at 65, 118 S. Ct. at 477, 139 L. Ed. 2d at 367. Szelc v. Stanger, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41827 a. Great case!!!!!! Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Young, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9506 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 1996) a. to plead predicate acts of mail or wire fraud, plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant devised a scheme to defraud; (2) the defendant used the United States mails or interstate wires to further the fraudulent scheme; and (3) the defendant did so with intent to defraud. See United States v. Wallach, 935 F.2d 445, 461 (2d Cir. 1991); Qantel Corp. v. Niemuller, 771 F. Supp. 1361, 1369 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). b. an alleged RICO conspirator must have some part in directing, conducting, or controlling the alleged RICO enterprise to be liable under 1962(c). Id. at 179, 18384. Petro-Tech, Inc. v. Western Co. of N. Am., 824 F.2d 1349 a. Supports the preposition that a person (as opposed to an enterprise) can be held liable under RICO for the actions of another. i. States the principal of vicarious liability in RICO cases. b. The doctrine of respondeat superior may be applied under Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organization, 18 U.S.C.S. 1961 et seq., where the structure of the statute does not otherwise forbid it. c. Liability for harm resulting to a third person from the tortuous conduct of another can be imposed upon a party who knows that the other's conduct constitutes a breach of duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other so to conduct himself. HOEPA 1994 violation a. http://www.lowestrate.com/home-ownership-and-equity-protection-act/

IV.

V.

VI. VII.

The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) Sears Mortgage Corp. v. Rose, 134 N.J. 326-deals with general agency principals