# United States v. Anthony Indelicato

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · January 13, 1989 · 865 F.2d 1370

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9478628

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Anthony INDELICATO, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** January 13, 1989
- **Citations:** 865 F.2d 1370; 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 413; 1989 WL 2706
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mahoney
- **Judges:** Oakes, Feinberg, Meskill, Newman, Kearse, Cardamone, Pierce, Winter, Pratt, Miner, Altimari, Mahoney
- **Cited by:** 352 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9478628

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that predicate acts must be interrelated and pose threat of continuity to constitute racketeering pattern and that these components may be established in various ways, including by linking each predicate to enterprise whose business is racketeering
- concluding that “nearly simultaneous murders of three persons as part of the conduct of the affairs of an organized crime enterprise constituted a ‘pattern of racketeering activity' within the meaning of [RICO]”
- noting that proof of racketeering acts and proof of enterprise in “establishment of a[n] [18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) ] violation will often entail overlap, for each act of racketeering activity will be related to the enterprise since the latter’s affairs are by hypothesis-conducted t…
- stating that an act in furtherance of a racketeering business “automatically carries with it the threat of continued racketeering activity”
- stating interrelationship of acts suggesting pattern may be established by showing their “temporal proximity, or common goals, or similarity of methods, or repetitions” as well as by showing involvement of similar participants

## Opinion text

MAHONEY, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I am in general agreement with Judge Kearse’s excellent opinion, and write separately only to state my disagreement with its assertion that “the concepts of relatedness and continuity are attributes of activity, not of a RICO enterprise....,” a point reiterated in several variations in the majority opinion.
The Supreme Court stated in United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 , 101 S.Ct. 2524 , 69 L.Ed.2d 246 (1981), that:
The [enterprise] is proved by evidence of an ongoing organization, formal or informal, and by evidence that the associates function as a continuing unit.
Id. at 583 , 101 S.Ct. at 2528 (emphasis added). It would thus appear clear that continuity is an attribute of a RICO enterprise, as well as a RICO pattern. As to relatedness, there will presumably be a relationship (1) between the associates that function as a continuing unit, and (2) between the associates and the unit.
The majority’s essential point is that the discussion of relatedness and continuity in Sedima footnote 14 refers to the RICO pattern rather than the RICO enterprise. I agree, and think that is what we should say.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9478628. Public record. Not legal advice.