Surname 1

Student's Name
Professor's Name
Course
Date
Alleged Violations of R.I.C.O. Involving New York Official Misconduct Statute
The intricate legal scenario involving Jones and Smith, both New York building
inspectors accused of accepting bribes from developers, has ignited a nuanced debate regarding
the legitimacy of their indictment under the “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (R.I.C.O.).” Central to this discussion is the question of whether the offenses alleged in the
R.I.C.O. indictment are not only chargeable but also punishable under New York law. The New
York official misconduct statute, which both Jones and Smith are accused of violating,
criminalizes the exploitation of public office for personal gain. Despite their separate outcomes
in state court - an acquittal for Jones and a case dismissal due to the statute of limitations for
Smith - the focus now rests on the federal R.I.C.O. indictment they face a year later. In light of
legal precedents and considerations of state law alignment, this paper delves into the intricacies
of the charges against Jones and Smith, exploring whether the R.I.C.O. indictment accurately
reflects offenses that adhere to New York's legal framework.
Understanding R.I.C.O. and Predicate Crimes
The R.I.C.O. is a federal statute devised to combat organized criminal activities. It
enables the prosecution of individuals engaged in a pattern of racketeering through a
"racketeering enterprise" (Justia, n.p.). In the present case involving Jones and Smith, the focus
lies on the predicate crimes alleged in their R.I.C.O. indictment. Predicate crimes serve as the
foundation for establishing a pattern of racketeering activity. Specifically, the indictment relies
on “violations of the New York official misconduct statute as the predicate crimes.” It is
paramount to determine whether these alleged offenses meet the criteria set by precedent cases
and are indeed “chargeable and punishable under New York law.”
Alleged Violations under “New York Official Misconduct Statute”
The heart of the legal predicament lies in whether the R.I.C.O. indictment accurately
captures offenses chargeable and punishable under the New York official misconduct statute.
This statute explicitly targets the misuse of public authority for personal advantage. In the case of
Jones and Smith, their acquittal and dismissal in state court, though distinct in nature, spotlight
the intricacies surrounding the application of this statute. The critical issue shifts to their
subsequent federal indictment under R.I.C.O., wherein the New York official misconduct statute
forms the basis for predicate crimes. The central inquiry pertains to whether the alleged
acceptance of bribes aligns with the statute's requirements for chargeable offenses. Parsing
through legal precedents and case-specific nuances becomes imperative in determining whether
the federal indictment appropriately conforms to the intricacies of the New York official
misconduct statute.
Comparative Analysis of Precedent Cases
“United States v. Davis, 576 F.2d 1065 (3d Cir. 1978)”
In this case, the Third Circuit held that Pennsylvania state law bribery offenses could
serve as predicates for R.I.C.O. charges. The court reasoned that the elements of bribery and
R.I.C.O. overlapped sufficiently, and thus, the indictment was valid (Legal Information Institute,
n.p.). This precedent highlights the federal courts' tendency to uphold R.I.C.O. charges based on
state bribery offenses.
“United States v. Frumento, 563 F.2d 1083 (3d Cir. 1977)”
 Surname 2

In this case, the Third Circuit determined that bribery was not a suitable predicate act for
an R.I.C.O. indictment. Bribery and the kind of organized criminality that R.I.C.O. was intended
to combat were distinguished by the court. This case serves as an illustration of how federal
courts carefully consider the characteristics of the predicate crime to determine whether they are
consistent with R.I.C.O.'s goals.
“Von Bulow v. Von Bulow, 634 F. Supp. 1284 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)”
Even though it had nothing to do with R.I.C.O., this case featured civil litigation. In this
case, the court ruled that a predicate offense should at least be "chargeable" under state law, if
not necessarily "punishable." This subtle distinction highlights how crucial it is for a predicate
offense to adhere to state law.
“United States v. Louie, 625 F.Supp.1327 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)”
In this instance, there were R.I.C.O. allegations, including New York legal extortion. The
court emphasized these factors by holding that a predicate offense must be "chargeable" and
"punishable" under state law (Criminal R.I.C.O., 27). When using state law as the foundation for
federal R.I.C.O. accusations, the court emphasized the need for precise adherence to that law.
Application to the Case of Jones and Smith
Turning to the case of Jones and Smith, their circumstance provides a challenging legal
conundrum that calls for a careful analysis of the R.I.C.O. indictment brought against them.
According to the indictment, Jones and Smith both committed predicate crimes in violation of
the New York official misconduct statute, which constitute violations of R.I.C.O. We must
consider whether the alleged offenses are "chargeable" and "punishable" under New York law, as
discussed in the previous decisions, in order to assess the legality of these allegations.
Consider Jones' exoneration in the state court trial first. Although Jones was cleared of
breaking the New York official misconduct legislation, it's important to understand that acquittal
does not always mean the behavior was not illegal under state law. Regardless of the outcome of
the trial, it is important to consider whether the action falls within the parameters of the statute
itself by defining "punishable" and "chargeable" differently. Therefore, the predicate felony may
still be "chargeable" under the New York official misconduct statute, notwithstanding the fact
that Jones was exonerated.
In the same way, the dismissal of charges in Smith's case due to the statute of limitations
poses a different challenge. While the prosecution was barred based on the timing of the alleged
offense, it does not inherently address whether the conduct is "chargeable" or not. The
application of the statute of limitations is a procedural consideration that doesn't directly
determine the substantive question of whether the alleged offense is within the scope of the New
York official misconduct statute.
In light of the Third Circuit's emphasis on the compatibility of the predicate crime with
the objectives of R.I.C.O. and the criteria of being "chargeable" and "punishable," the indictment
against Jones and Smith appears to face significant hurdles. The nuanced analysis established by
precedent cases suggests that the mere fact of an acquittal or dismissal based on procedural
grounds may not conclusively render the alleged offenses as not "chargeable" under New York
law.
Conclusion
In light of the comparative analysis of precedent cases and the specific circumstances of
Jones and Smith's case, it becomes clear that the R.I.C.O. indictment's validity rests on whether
the alleged offenses – “violations of the New York official misconduct statute - are chargeable
and punishable under New York law.” The nuances in the interpretations of "chargeable" and
 Surname 3

"punishable" in the context of predicate crimes require meticulous consideration. The precedent
cases indicate that strict adherence to state law, alignment with R.I.C.O.'s objectives, and the
nature of the predicate crime all play critical roles in determining the legality of the indictment.
Ultimately, a comprehensive evaluation of the indictment vis-à-vis these factors is imperative to
ascertain the validity of the charges against Jones and Smith under the R.I.C.O. statute.
 Surname 4

Works Cited
Criminal, R. I. C. O. "U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 A Manual For Federal Prosecutors SIXTH
REVISED EDITION May 2016 Prepared by the Staff of the Organized Crime and Gang
Section U.S. Department of Justice." Washington, DC 20005.202 (18): 514-3594.
Justia. “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (R.I.C.O.) Law.” Justia, 19 May 2023,
www.justia.com/criminal/docs/rico/
Legal Information Institute. “United States v. Davis.” Legal Information Institute, June 2019,
www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/18-431