Prosecutors still need RICO despite criticism in Young Thug and Diddy trials
Although it’s risen to prominence through several recent cases, the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, has been around for more than 50 years. Passed as part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, it was created to combat traditional organized crime, particularly as crime families infiltrated legitimate businesses.
When Georgia General Assembly crafted the state’s version, they used the federal RICO statute as a model. The Georgia RICO Act (Official Code of Georgia Annotated, or OCGA, 16-14-4), however, is much broader than its federal counterpart.
The two key differences are that the federal RICO statute requires proof of continuity and an enterprise, while Georgia’s law can be used to prosecute individuals or schemes that have been active for only a short time.
Typically, Georgia prosecutors use RICO for complex criminal schemes involving thousands of transactions or multiple victims. To be prosecuted under Georgia RICO, the underlying crimes must qualify as acts of racketeering activity, which are listed in OCGA 16-14-3.
Why criticism of RICO is misplaced
RICO also applies in civil litigation. In civil litigation, plaintiffs may collect treble (triple) damages and attorneys’ fees, and RICO judgment is not dischargeable in most types of bankruptcy. In some cases, they can be collected against successor corporations.
While RICO originally targeted the Mafia, prosecutors have used it against many forms of organized crime including Ponzi schemes, street gangs, cartels and even police departments.
More recent cases feature public corruption matters, including Detroit’s former mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, convicted under the federal law and President Donald Trump, indicted under Georgia’s version of the RICO Act.
Two recent not guilty verdicts in high-profile RICO cases have led to criticism of the RICO Act. In the YSL trial, several defendants (including rapper Young Thug) pleaded guilty to lesser charges, while two were acquitted. Overall, that case led to the perception that Fulton County lost in part because it overreached with the RICO statute.
More recently, Sean “Diddy” Combs was found not guilty of sex trafficking and racketeering charges, prompting similar criticism. Some commentators after that trial suggested that RICO should not have been used.
That criticism is misplaced. RICO cases are among the most complex to prosecute because RICO is usually charged as a tool to handle complicated cases. The complexity isn’t in the statute — it’s in the facts of the case. These cases tend to be sprawling and can have scores of defendants committing hundreds of predicate acts.
Without the RICO Act, those would be individually prosecuted cases that clog the courts and prevent juries from seeing the full scope of a conspiracy. More importantly, RICO allows prosecutors to paint a fuller picture and impose penalties that deter organized crime.
RICO remains powerful civil litigation tool
Although the recent emphasis has been on RICO failures, prosecutors have had tremendous success using the RICO Act — some even in high-profile cases. The college admissions bribery scandal that ensnared celebrities including Felicity Huffman resulted in numerous convictions under the federal RICO Act.
Similarly, in Georgia, the Fulton District Attorney’s Office secured guilty convictions for all but one defendant in the Atlanta Public Schools RICO trial, earning widespread praise.
While some claim prosecutors overcharge RICO, the law is here to stay. Looking at the cases in the appellate courts, the vast majority of RICO cases are now brought in civil litigation, where it remains a powerful tool. Civil litigators, like me, would be upset if RICO was taken from our arsenal.
On the criminal side, the Department of Justice’s Organized Crime and Gang Section stays busy, and the Georgia District Attorneys’ Offices will continue to bring cases to protect the citizens of our state.
Chris Timmons is a partner at Knowles Gallant Timmons, an Atlanta-based law firm specializing in complex litigation and dispute resolution. He has tried more than 100 cases in federal and state courts and focuses his practice on high-stakes legal matters, including RICO Act litigation and organizational misconduct. Before joining the firm, he served as a prosecutor in Cobb and DeKalb counties for 17 years and worked as a litigation associate at King & Spalding and Taft, Stettinius & Hollister.
