This paper examines the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) from its 1970 legislative origins through its evolving modern applications. Beginning with the structural characteristics of organized crime and the government's difficulty prosecuting it, the paper traces RICO's early use against Mafia families such as the Genovese family, analyzes landmark cases including the prosecution of Alphonse Tieri and the failed case against Hell's Angels founder Sonny Barger, and explores RICO's expansion into white-collar crime, political corruption, and terrorism. The paper also addresses persistent constitutional concerns, enforcement failures, and the parallels between traditional organized crime and corporate criminality.
The paper demonstrates sustained comparative analysis, consistently juxtaposing RICO's legislative intent against its practical outcomes. By placing the Mafia context alongside motorcycle gang prosecutions, Sicilian Maxi Trials, and white-collar enforcement, the author builds an inductive argument that RICO's inherent breadth is simultaneously its greatest asset and its most serious structural weakness — a claim supported by case evidence and secondary scholarship throughout.
The paper opens with a conceptual framing of organized crime and the rationale for RICO, then moves chronologically from the Act's 1970 origins through early Mafia prosecutions and into expanding modern applications. A dedicated section on constitutional challenges precedes the white-collar crime analysis. The conclusion synthesizes the argument by returning to the tension between RICO's original intent and its current practice, providing logical closure without introducing new claims.
Prosecuting organized crime has always carried unique and unwieldy challenges for law enforcement agents and agencies. By their very nature, organized crime syndicates tend to be complex, inherently subterranean in their affairs, and given over to a widespread obscurity of illegal activities. Thus, even in the face of what might in some instances be seen as egregious offenses against the law or against other groups and individuals, it has historically been difficult for law enforcement to bring charges that not only stick to offenders, but that are also significant enough to serve justice and encompass the full scope of such illegal entities' activities. The secretive leadership structure, the widely distributed delegation of responsibilities, and the relationships often forged between members of organized crime groups and individuals in the legitimate worlds of business, the judiciary, or politics have made it supremely difficult to make meaningful charges stick to those at the top of organized criminal structures — whether corporate, Mafioso, or some other form of gang or contraband trafficking group.
These variant challenges account for the passage and widely diffuse application of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which in its four decades of application has become the bane of traditionally ethnically based organized criminal enterprises and has, over time, come to be gradually applied to a far wider set of cases than perhaps originally imagined.
Indeed, today RICO has become a powerfully versatile tool for law enforcement, conforming to needs that have expanded to include white-collar crime, political corruption, terrorist conspiracy, and gang activity. The organized and structural nature of such targeted groups renders them elusive to traditional or individual charges, and has thus made the catch-all nature of RICO's provisions a favored way to approach otherwise difficult legal intervention in the face of obvious criminality. This point inclines us first to consider what is implied by the conception of organized crime, so that we might develop a clearer understanding of why the RICO Act holds such far-reaching and strategic importance today. Likewise, understanding the nature of the organizations or activities targeted by RICO will help illuminate some of its core shortcomings, some of its practical failures, and some of the conflict relating to RICO's constitutionality or deviation therefrom.
In 1970, the United States government attempted to craft a piece of legislation with a sweeping focus on the proliferation of organized crime, which at the time was embodied by the leading role of Sicilian and Italian family enterprises known as La Cosa Nostra and the Mafia. Attempting to heighten both agency enforcement capacity and the stakes for those running afoul of its conditions, RICO was designed to ease restrictions on surveillance methods and to establish a concrete relationship between criminal acts and involvement with organized crime. Its intent was to assert that the concurrence of certain criminal activities was not incidental but part of a broader criminal conspiracy against state and country. The legislation was thus designed to both triple the financial penalty for acts of such an association and to increase the coincidence between various criminal charges and the "organized crime" classification needed to levy such fines (Grell, 1). This greatly expanded the government's ability to combat organized crime as traditionally defined, endowing federal prosecutors with the right to utilize included offenses to earn the defendant the umbrella charge of racketeering. As research indicates of its initial application, "throughout the 1970s, RICO's intended purpose and its actual use ran parallel to each other. Seldom was RICO used outside of the context of the Mafia, and it is not an overstatement to say that civil claims under RICO were simply not brought" (Grell, 1).
As we consider the notion of organized crime, we can develop a clearer view of the way RICO has evolved to the present day — such that it is now rarely, if ever, used in regards to the Mafia (Grell, 1). Organized crime is something which should increasingly be demystified and examined for what it truly is. It is tempting to view organized crime as a paradoxically nuanced subject, given over to both tactics of an extremely objectionable nature and to meaningful principles that are deeply ingrained by tradition. This view, however, is not a realistic understanding of its current makeup. While organized crime does still denote a complex enterprise consisting of many established forms of self-regulation, its motives are far simpler and governed almost exclusively by money. Essentially, organized crime operates in much the same way as corporate consolidation, only doing so outside the boundaries of the established laws of state and country.
The "mob," as it were, is neither mythological nor fully understood by the general public, but it bears a number of key characteristics that distinguish it both from legitimate enterprise and from more informal criminal entities. Organized crime pertains to the activity orientation of any enterprise that operates outside the law through economic ventures, which are often characterized by transgressing operations such as drug trafficking, arms trafficking, gambling, and prostitution (FBI, 1).
With each of these territories comes an inherent demand for monopolistic tactics that mirror those in the legitimate business realm. Leadership in organized crime is a double-edged sword: high-ranking "family" members simultaneously accumulate great power, wealth, and influence while residing in the crosshairs of those aspiring to seize such authority by violent means, or those looking to disrupt illegal activity through judicial and enforcement jurisdiction.
The structural approach of such organizations is often the key distinction that places their activity in its own business and criminology category. Its capacity for self-perpetuation has made it a superior model for crime-for-profit. While maintaining exclusivity with regard to membership — defined by factors relating to power, influence, and discreteness rather than strictly ethnicity — organized crime units are uniquely resilient. "The FBI has found that even if key individuals in an organization are removed, the depth and financial strength of the organization often allows the enterprise to continue" (FBI, 1). Its methods of violence and assassination are actually accounted for in its structural tendencies, as are such likelihoods as prosecutions and imprisonment for members at myriad levels of a hierarchy.
According to Section 1961 of the RICO Act, the definition of the charge is an incredibly broad category, touching upon almost all areas of criminal activity as they might occur in an organized sense and in relation to one another. The legislation refers primarily to the idea of racketeering, evaluating it as a criminal conspiracy characterized by the inclusion of only two coinciding charges out of an array that includes almost forty items for which one could be considered in breach of federal law. As Section 1961 denotes, "'racketeering activity' means (a) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year" (CULS, 1).
The law then goes on to note further specific offenses including bribery, interstate theft, mail fraud, the falsification of citizenship, illegal gaming facilitation, counterfeiting, insider trading, unlawful monetary activities, and the corruption or exploitation of minors, among the most commonly considered relevant charges.
One of the unique distinctions that sets RICO apart from other crime-fighting statutes is its ability to apply federal charges to an alleged offender even where many of the crimes are articulated as offenses against state-based laws. Moreover, the sentencing that can be applied to charges assembled under the RICO umbrella is inherently more conducive to longer terms than those charges would carry standing alone. The idea is that sentencing should occur proportional to the degree of criminality understood to relate to those involved in organized crime. This is the raison d'être for the RICO Act, which proceeds from the understanding that its primary targets are individuals involved in a degree of criminality more established and extensive than the law is likely to be able to monitor, prove, or prosecute. Proving the relationship between two or more of the charges encapsulated by RICO is thus considered tantamount to proving that one has taken a leadership role in an organized criminal enterprise, with the understanding that there are likely additional offenses for which prosecution has not been sought. Moreover, a prosecution of core leadership under RICO charges is likely to produce revelations concerning the relationship between leadership and other members who are guilty of racketeering or some lesser scope of individual crime. RICO was essentially designed to push the door open on the activities of typically obscured enterprises in order to systematically disrupt their initiatives and priorities.
What the research conducted here reveals is a set of shortcomings concerning RICO that extend primarily from its eventual withdrawal from its formative intention. Namely, its initiating cause of restricting the movement and activities of the Mafia no longer seems to register with federal agents and judiciary bodies, who instead have increasingly come to treat RICO as its broadness has allowed. That is, RICO constitutes a set of laws malleable enough to allow prosecutors to at least attempt to bring broad and sweeping conspiracy charges against those who are likely guilty of consistent, associated, premeditated, and strategically correlated crimes. To this point, however, challenges to its constitutionality almost completely aside, RICO continues to fall short in meeting its considerable burden of proof in a context that is actually effective in disrupting or removing the operational capacity of organized criminal enterprise in any context.
ACLU. (2003). How 'Patriot Act 2' would further erode the basic checks on government power that keep America safe and free. American Civil Liberties Union.
Arshadi, N. (1998). Insider trading liability and enforcement strategy. Financial Management, 27(2), 70–84.
[University] Law School (CULS). (1970). Chapter 96 — Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations. U.S. Code Collection.
FBI. (2004). Investigative programs: Organized crime. Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Grell, J. (2007). Index. RICOACT.com.
Potter, G. W. (2006). Outlaw motorcycle gangs. Ozbiker.
Sanders, A. L., & Painton, P. (1989). Showdown at Gucci. Time Magazine.
UPI. (1984). Key West Police Department called a "criminal enterprise." The New York Times.
Upahts, J. (2006). Alphonse Tieri. American Organized Crime.
von Lampe, K. (2001). The concept of organized crime in historical perspective. Forum on Crime and Society, 1(2).
von Lampe, K. (2000). Review: Hell's Angel: The life and times of Sonny Barger and the Hell's Angels Motorcycle Club. Organized Crime Book Review Section.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.