Lexplug logoLexplug

United States v. Biaggi

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
909 F.2d 662 (1990)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The commission of a substantive criminal offense and the offender's own subsequent false denial of that offense do not, without more, constitute a 'pattern of racketeering activity' sufficient to support a conviction under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).


Facts:

  • Wedtech Corporation, a minority-owned manufacturing company, was part of the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 'Section 8(a)' program, which allowed it to receive government contracts without competitive bidding.
  • Wedtech retained the law firm of Congressman Mario Biaggi, where his partner was Bernard Ehrlich and his son Richard Biaggi later became a partner.
  • Congressman Biaggi used his official position to help Wedtech secure multi-million dollar contracts from the Defense Department.
  • In 1983, when Wedtech went public, it issued 5% of its stock to Bernard Ehrlich and Richard Biaggi, with the government contending Richard held his shares as a nominee for his father, Congressman Biaggi.
  • Wedtech paid Biaggi's law firm $50,000 to secure a lease for a waterside property known as One Loop Drive from New York City, a transaction in which Congressman Biaggi exerted pressure on Bronx Borough President Stanley Simon.
  • Simon, in turn, demanded and received approximately $50,000 in benefits from Wedtech in connection with the Loop Drive lease, as well as a job for his brother-in-law.
  • Wedtech officials promised Peter Neglia, an SBA regional administrator, a future job at Biaggi's law firm, with Wedtech paying half his salary, in exchange for his assistance in keeping Wedtech in the 8(a) program.
  • After the job promise, Neglia took actions to protect Wedtech's status in the 8(a) program and later made false statements to a Defense Department investigator denying the arrangement.

Procedural Posture:

  • Six defendants, including Mario Biaggi and Stanley Simon, were indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on charges including extortion, bribery, mail fraud, and RICO violations.
  • Following a five-month jury trial, all six defendants were convicted on various counts.
  • The defendants appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a criminal offense, such as accepting a bribe, combined with the offender's own subsequent false denial of that offense, constitute a 'pattern of racketeering activity' under the RICO statute?


Opinions:

Majority - Judge Jon O. Newman

No. A bribe and the false denial of that same bribe do not satisfy the 'pattern' element of a RICO offense. The government cannot escalate a single substantive offense into a RICO violation simply by charging the offender's subsequent false denial as a second predicate act. The 'pattern' element requires relatedness plus continuity, and it serves to guard against using RICO's severe penalties against sporadic, isolated criminal activity. Allowing a crime and its denial to form a pattern would pervert the statute's meaning, as it would make nearly every offense eligible for RICO treatment whenever the offender maintained their innocence, which is not what Congress intended. This distinguishes the situation from an offender enlisting others to lie, which extends the criminal conduct, whereas an offender's own denial is simply a maintenance of innocence.



Analysis:

This decision significantly limits the scope of the RICO statute's 'pattern of racketeering activity' element. It prevents prosecutors from bootstrapping a single criminal act into a RICO charge by simply adding an obstruction or false statement charge based on the defendant's denial of the underlying offense. This clarification is crucial for preventing RICO, with its severe penalties, from becoming an 'automatic sentence enhancement device' for a wide range of individual crimes. The ruling reinforces the requirement that a RICO pattern must involve criminal activity that is continuous in nature, not merely a single offense followed by a predictable, self-serving denial.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query United States v. Biaggi (1990) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for United States v. Biaggi