holding that court had jurisdiction over RICO claim where “[t]he effect on the commerce of the United States of engaging in [the fraud was] palpable” and “[t]he criminal enterprise which [the defendants were] charged with conducting consisted in operations taking place within the United States ... [that] had multiple effects on the domestic and foreign commerce of this country”
How later courts described this case
- holding that court had jurisdiction over RICO claim where “[t]he effect on the commerce of the United States of engaging in [the fraud was] palpable” and “[t]he criminal enterprise which [the defendants were] charged with conducting consisted in operations taking place within the United States ... [that] had multiple effects on the domestic and foreign commerce of this country”
- explaining that Ferdinand Marcos used Swiss bank accounts to hide $1.3 billion of the Philippines’ money, and while the banks eventually froze the assets, they fought against returning the assets to the Philippines
- finding that the complaint “sufficiently allege[d] a RICO offense” against the former president of the Republic of the Philippines, a situation where the FSIA did not apply
- holding that, where the former leader of the republic of Philippines diverted public funds for private financial gain, his actions could not be attributed to the sovereign
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FLETCHER, Circuit Judge,
concurring specially in Judge SGHROEDER’s concurring and dissenting opinion:
I concur fully in the following portions of Judge Schroeder’s opinion: its discussion of the basis for finding jurisdiction based on a well-pleaded RICO claim; its discussion of the basis for concluding that the act of state doctrine is not a prudential bar at this stage of the proceedings in this case.
I concur only in its conclusion that the injunction should be vacated and remanded for further consideration in that I do not agree with its restrictive view of pendent jurisdiction (by the same token, I cannot agree with the majority’s expansive approach). Also, I would stay the vacation of the injunction for a reasonable period of time to allow the district court to reconsider the injunction and its scope in light of the current state of the record.