The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U. It claimed petitioners were engaged in an unlawful racketeering scheme aimed at “gain[ing] sales and market share at Ideal’s expense.” App. According to Ideal, National adopted a practice of failing to charge the requisite New York sales tax to cashpaying customers, even when conducting transactions that were not exempt from sales tax under state law. Mail fraud and wire fraud are forms of “racketeering activity” for purposes of RICO. Petitioners’ conduct allegedly constituted a “pattern of racketeering activity,” see § 1961(5) (2000 ed.), because the fraudulent returns were submitted on an ongoing and regular basis.
National offers a similar array of products and services, and it, too, operates one store in Queens and one in the sued petitioners in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Raymond Willis and Evercrete New York bring this action alleging trademark infringement, conversion, unjust enrichment, common law fraud, and mail and wire fraud in violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").
Ethics of responsibility: We make of our behavior a practice of social transcendence.
Our professional services in this area include the registration, renewal and updating of records as well as their defense and protection.
One of RICO’s enforcement mechanisms is a private right of action, available to “[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation” of RICO’s substantive restrictions. Because this case arises from a motion to dismiss, we accept as true the factual allegations in the amended complaint. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U. It operates two store locations in New York, one in Queens and the other in the Bronx. (National), owned by petitioners Joseph and Vincent Anza, is Ideal’s principal competitor.
III), prohibits certain conduct involving a “pattern of racketeering activity.” § 1962 (2000 ed.). The instant case requires us to apply the principles discussed in Holmes to a dispute between two competing businesses. Respondent Ideal Steel Supply Corporation (Ideal) sells steel mill products along with related supplies and services.