Founding Attorney
Civil RICO cases are private lawsuits under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). A person injured in business or property by a pattern of racketeering activity connected to an enterprise can sue the wrongdoers. If successful, the plaintiff recovers three times its damages, plus costs and attorney’s fees. In addition, Florida offers a similar remedy in Chapter 772.
What Are Civil RICO Cases?
Congress passed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act in 1970 to fight organized crime. However, the statute also created a private right of action. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), “[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962” may sue in federal district court and “shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.” In practice, most civil RICO cases today involve commercial fraud rather than organized crime.
Section 1962 contains four bans. First, subsection (a) bars investing racketeering proceeds in an enterprise. Second, subsection (b) bars gaining or keeping control of an enterprise through racketeering. Third, subsection (c) bars running an enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. Finally, subsection (d) bars plotting to do any of these things. In practice, most business plaintiffs plead subsection (c), often with a conspiracy count.
Why do companies bring these claims? First, treble damages and fee shifting change the economics of a fraud dispute. Second, the statute reaches conduct that crosses state and national borders. Third, a well-pleaded racketeering count raises the stakes for every defendant. In addition, our racketeering practice page explains how we handle these matters.
The Elements of a Civil RICO Claim
The Supreme Court set out the core elements in Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (1985). Namely, a plaintiff must show (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity. Moreover, the Court held that no prior criminal conviction is required. In the Eleventh Circuit, which covers Florida, courts apply a six-part test drawn from Cisneros v. Petland, Inc., 972 F.3d 1204, 1211 (11th Cir. 2020). Under that test, the defendant must have (1) operated or managed (2) an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity that included at least two predicate acts, which (5) caused (6) injury to the plaintiff’s business or property.
Racketeering activity and predicate acts
Racketeering activity means the offenses listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). For example, the list includes mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, bribery, extortion, and dozens of other crimes. In commercial disputes, mail and wire fraud predicates are the most common. Because those predicates sound in fraud, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) requires the plaintiff to plead them with particularity. Notably, a plaintiff need not show that it personally relied on the false statements. See Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co., 553 U.S. 639 (2008).
The pattern requirement
Section 1961(5) requires at least two predicate acts, the last of which occurred within ten years of a prior act. However, two acts alone are not enough. In H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989), the Court required continuity plus relationship. In other words, the predicates must be related, and they must amount to or threaten continued criminal activity. Continuity can be closed-ended, meaning a series of related acts over a long period, or open-ended, meaning conduct that by its nature threatens to continue.
Enterprise, conduct, and causation
The enterprise can be a legal entity or an association-in-fact. Under Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009), an association-in-fact needs a common purpose, ties among its members, and enough time to pursue that purpose. In addition, the defendant must have taken part in the operation or management of the enterprise. See Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170 (1993). Finally, the words “by reason of” impose a proximate-cause requirement. Namely, Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., 503 U.S. 258 (1992), demands a direct link between the injury and the racketeering conduct.
Recent Civil RICO Cases That Changed the Law
Three recent decisions matter for any business weighing a racketeering claim in 2026.
Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn (2025)
On April 2, 2025, the Supreme Court decided Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, 604 U.S. ___ (2025). Douglas Horn, a commercial truck driver, lost his job after a supposedly THC-free CBD product caused a failed drug test. At first, the district court granted summary judgment against him, reasoning that his lost employment came from a personal injury. However, the Second Circuit reversed, and the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit. The Court held that a plaintiff may seek treble damages for business or property loss even if the loss resulted from a personal injury. Personal injury damages themselves remain unavailable under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Moreover, the Court did not decide whether the word “business” covers every aspect of employment. Still, the ruling rejects the antecedent-personal-injury bar that several circuits had applied.
Yegiazaryan v. Smagin (2023)
In Yegiazaryan v. Smagin, 599 U.S. 533 (2023), a Russian creditor held a California judgment confirming a foreign arbitral award. According to the complaint, the debtor and his associates hid assets and used sham companies to block collection in California. The Court held that a plaintiff pleads a domestic injury when the circumstances surrounding the injury indicate it arose in the United States. As a result, foreign plaintiffs can bring civil RICO cases when the racketeering targets their U.S. enforcement rights.
Otto Candies, LLC v. Citigroup Inc. (11th Cir. 2025)
On May 8, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit decided Otto Candies, LLC v. Citigroup Inc., No. 23-13152. In that case, thirty plaintiffs alleged more than $1 billion in losses from a cash-advance fraud involving Mexican oil-services company Oceanografía and Citigroup’s Banamex unit. The Southern District of Florida had dismissed every count. However, the Eleventh Circuit reversed. In particular, it held that the fraud allegations satisfied Rule 9(b), that reliance is not an element of a wire-fraud racketeering claim, and that the securities-fraud carve-out in § 1964(c) did not bar plaintiffs whose own claims were not actionable as securities fraud. Then, on January 12, 2026, the Supreme Court denied certiorari (No. 25-391). As a result, the decision remains binding precedent in Florida’s federal courts.
Statute of Limitations and Remedies in RICO Lawsuits
A four-year limitations period applies to federal claims. The Supreme Court borrowed it from the Clayton Act in Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc., 483 U.S. 143 (1987). Under that rule, the clock starts when the plaintiff discovers, or should have discovered, its injury. However, it does not wait for discovery of the pattern. See Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000). Therefore, businesses that suspect fraud should act quickly.
The remedies are large. Section 1964(c) awards threefold the damages sustained, plus the cost of the suit and a reasonable attorney’s fee. However, one limit applies. Namely, a plaintiff cannot rely on conduct that would be actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities, unless the defendant has been criminally convicted in connection with that fraud.
Florida’s Chapter 772: The State-Law Alternative
Florida’s Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, Chapter 772 of the Florida Statutes, gives businesses a state-court option. Section 772.103 mirrors the four federal bans. In addition, the statute defines criminal activity to include the federal predicates listed in § 1961(1) and a long list of Florida crimes, including theft, fraud, forgery, and computer offenses. Likewise, readers familiar with the Florida civil theft statute will recognize the structure, because § 772.11 sits in the same chapter.
Key differences for a Florida civil RICO claim
There are important differences. Under § 772.102(4), the last incident must occur within five years of a prior incident. Moreover, the rule excludes two or more incidents of fraudulent conduct arising out of a single contract or transaction against one or more related persons. Under § 772.104(1), the plaintiff must prove the claim by clear and convincing evidence. In return, the reward is threefold actual damages, minimum damages of $200, and attorney’s fees and costs.
However, § 772.104(3) bars punitive damages and lets a defendant recover its fees if the claim lacked substantial fact or legal support. Section 772.17 sets a five-year limitations period and tolls it during a state or federal prosecution and for two more years. Under § 772.14, a criminal judgment against the defendant estops that defendant in the civil case. Finally, Florida courts read Chapter 772 in light of federal decisions. See Jackson v. BellSouth Telecommunications, 372 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2004).
RICO lawsuit remedies at a glance
| Feature | Federal RICO (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968) | Florida Chapter 772 |
|---|---|---|
| Limitations period | 4 years (Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff) | 5 years (§ 772.17) |
| Standard of proof | Preponderance of the evidence | Clear and convincing evidence (§ 772.104(1)) |
| Pattern window | Last act within 10 years of a prior act (§ 1961(5)) | Last incident within 5 years of a prior incident (§ 772.102(4)) |
| Damages | Treble damages, costs, and attorney’s fee (§ 1964(c)) | Treble actual damages, $200 minimum, fees and costs (§ 772.104(1)) |
| Punitive damages | Not provided in § 1964(c) | Barred (§ 772.104(3)) |
| Prevailing-defendant fees | No general provision in § 1964(c) | Available if the claim lacked substantial fact or legal support (§ 772.104(3)) |
Cross-Border and International Civil RICO Cases
Many disputes we see in Miami involve foreign parties, offshore companies, and money that moved through U.S. banks. Since RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 579 U.S. 325 (2016), a private plaintiff must allege and prove a domestic injury to business or property. In other words, foreign injuries are not recoverable, even when some predicate acts occurred in the United States.
Smagin softened the practical impact of that rule. Under its contextual test, courts look at where the injury arose, not merely where the plaintiff lives. In addition, Otto Candies shows that a transnational fraud pleaded with particularity can survive dismissal in South Florida. For creditors, the lesson is clear. Namely, conduct that blocks enforcing a foreign arbitral award in the United States may itself support a domestic-injury claim.
Cross-border civil RICO cases raise other issues too. For example, service abroad, foreign discovery, parallel proceedings, and choice-of-law questions all require planning. Likewise, sovereign defendants add immunity questions under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
Common Defenses and Pleading Pitfalls
Defendants have a large toolkit. First, they attack the pattern. For example, a single scheme with one victim over a short period often fails the continuity test. Second, they argue that the person and the enterprise are not distinct. Third, they recast the claim as an ordinary breach of contract. Indeed, courts dismiss racketeering counts that merely restate a commercial dispute. Fourth, they invoke Rule 9(b), proximate cause, the securities-fraud bar, and the domestic-injury requirement. In addition, under Florida law, the clear-and-convincing standard and the prevailing-defendant fee provision add further risk for plaintiffs. Fifth, after Horn, defendants in RICO cases will still argue that a claimed loss is really a personal injury rather than a harm to business or property.
Because the stakes run in both directions, careful case review matters. The following checklist reflects the questions we ask at intake.
- Identify at least two predicate acts and gather the documents that prove each one.
- Then map the enterprise and explain how each defendant directed its affairs.
- Next, confirm relationship and continuity between the predicate acts.
- Also trace the injury to the racketeering conduct, not merely to a broken promise.
- Check the limitations period and when the plaintiff first learned of the injury.
- In addition, determine whether the injury is domestic and whether the securities-fraud bar applies.
- Compare federal RICO with Florida’s Chapter 772 and choose the forum.
- Finally, weigh fee-shifting exposure before filing.
Frequently Asked Questions
A successful plaintiff recovers three times its actual damages to business or property. In addition, the court awards the costs of suit and a reasonable attorney’s fee under § 1964(c). Personal injury damages, such as pain and suffering, are not recoverable, although business losses that flow from a personal injury may be recoverable under RICO after Horn.
Federal claims carry a four-year limitations period that runs from discovery of the injury. Meanwhile, Florida’s Chapter 772 allows five years and tolls the period during a related government prosecution. Notably, waiting for the pattern to become obvious does not delay the federal clock.
Yes, if it suffered a domestic injury to business or property. Under Yegiazaryan v. Smagin, courts look at the facts around the injury to decide whether it arose in the United States. In contrast, injuries felt only abroad do not qualify under RJR Nabisco.
The two statutes share the same structure, and Florida courts follow federal case law. However, Florida requires clear and convincing evidence, uses a five-year pattern window and limitations period, and lets a prevailing defendant recover fees when a claim lacked support. In contrast, federal RICO uses the ordinary civil standard and a four-year limitations period.
Conclusion
In short, civil RICO cases reward preparation. The elements are demanding, the pleading standards are strict, and recent rulings such as Horn, Smagin, and Otto Candies continue to reshape the field. Therefore, businesses that understand the federal and Florida frameworks can decide early whether a racketeering claim, or a defense to one, fits their dispute.
If your company is weighing a racketeering claim or defending against one, contact our team to discuss the federal and Florida options that fit your situation.
