Sheesh.
You do understand that if the feds are investigating and presenting evidence to a grand jury, that they are dealing with matters over which the feds have jurisdiction, i.e., violations of federal laws, such as (e.g., in an FDA criminal investigation) drug enforcement and import and export laws, wire fraud, mail fraud, tax fraud and evasion, etc. If the matters involved merely state law violations, it would be a state investigation. So from a jurisdiction point of view, there's not so much to discuss. The question was why is this being investigated or evidence presented to a grand jury in Los Angeles (as opposed to, for example, in Texas, or New York, or Georgia, or elsewhere), and the simple answer is because the people investigating believe that the evidence suggests the possible commission of a violation of federal law may have likely occurred within the Central District of California. Please don't insult me or the rest of the readers here by suggesting anyone mentioned the Los Angeles Municipal Code or state law. No one did except you.
And in the context of discussing the differences between fraud and contract, that was in connection with a discussion of potential civil liability, i.e., whether and to what extent someone who might testify under a grant of immunity from criminal prosecution might yet still be exposed to potential civil liability and the different measures of damages. No one, certainly not me, was talking about criminal fraud, although materially, there's not much distinction except for the requirement of scienter and the higher standard of proof, i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of evidence.
As for RICO, I already said I did not disagree with your substantive comments about what RICO may be generally used for, but you use examples of civil RICO and criminal prosecution under RICO interchageably and they are not. And as for the assertion that federal prosecutors use RICO "all the time", that's just not borne out by the statistics from the U.S. Justice Federal Statistics Database (http://fjsrc.urban.org/). You'll probably be interested to learn that in 2008, the lastest year for which the BJS has published available statistical data, there were a total of only 166 RICO cases brought by way of indictment or information nationwide at the federal level out of 38,074 cases brought for all violations under Title 18 USC during that same year, i.e., 2008. That's a far cry from "all the time." In fact that's less than 0.000043 % of all cases, a number that many would define as statistically insignificant. And consider that many of those cases involved RICO prosecutions brought against street gangs or for securities violations, and the number is even less significant in the context of what the media has reported about the current investigation.
Again, I'm certainly not suggesting that the grand jury in this instance might not return an indictment which also includes one or more RICO violations, but from a statistical as well as Justice Department policy point of view, it's more likely that this won't occur.
There are a lot of reasons why RICO is not applied "all the time" in a criminal context at the federal level, too many to go into in the context of this thread. But Superlicht got it right....it's a very high threshold to apply it in the federal criminal context, and federal prosecutors are discouraged from using RICO for what are otherwise non-RICO prosecutions. And keep in mind that no one here was talking about civil RICO. The USAM does indeed set forth the policy followed by the Justice Department's Criminal Division. I agree it's not the law, but I never said it was.
And with respect to the rest of the points, I'm with my sock puppet...and my other sock puppet. Nothing further to add. I have one request: Please leave the ad hominem attacks or commentary out of this thread. Disagree with me all you want, but please let's not let this thread devolve into slinging insults.
You do understand that if the feds are investigating and presenting evidence to a grand jury, that they are dealing with matters over which the feds have jurisdiction, i.e., violations of federal laws, such as (e.g., in an FDA criminal investigation) drug enforcement and import and export laws, wire fraud, mail fraud, tax fraud and evasion, etc. If the matters involved merely state law violations, it would be a state investigation. So from a jurisdiction point of view, there's not so much to discuss. The question was why is this being investigated or evidence presented to a grand jury in Los Angeles (as opposed to, for example, in Texas, or New York, or Georgia, or elsewhere), and the simple answer is because the people investigating believe that the evidence suggests the possible commission of a violation of federal law may have likely occurred within the Central District of California. Please don't insult me or the rest of the readers here by suggesting anyone mentioned the Los Angeles Municipal Code or state law. No one did except you.
And in the context of discussing the differences between fraud and contract, that was in connection with a discussion of potential civil liability, i.e., whether and to what extent someone who might testify under a grant of immunity from criminal prosecution might yet still be exposed to potential civil liability and the different measures of damages. No one, certainly not me, was talking about criminal fraud, although materially, there's not much distinction except for the requirement of scienter and the higher standard of proof, i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of evidence.
As for RICO, I already said I did not disagree with your substantive comments about what RICO may be generally used for, but you use examples of civil RICO and criminal prosecution under RICO interchageably and they are not. And as for the assertion that federal prosecutors use RICO "all the time", that's just not borne out by the statistics from the U.S. Justice Federal Statistics Database (http://fjsrc.urban.org/). You'll probably be interested to learn that in 2008, the lastest year for which the BJS has published available statistical data, there were a total of only 166 RICO cases brought by way of indictment or information nationwide at the federal level out of 38,074 cases brought for all violations under Title 18 USC during that same year, i.e., 2008. That's a far cry from "all the time." In fact that's less than 0.000043 % of all cases, a number that many would define as statistically insignificant. And consider that many of those cases involved RICO prosecutions brought against street gangs or for securities violations, and the number is even less significant in the context of what the media has reported about the current investigation.
Again, I'm certainly not suggesting that the grand jury in this instance might not return an indictment which also includes one or more RICO violations, but from a statistical as well as Justice Department policy point of view, it's more likely that this won't occur.
There are a lot of reasons why RICO is not applied "all the time" in a criminal context at the federal level, too many to go into in the context of this thread. But Superlicht got it right....it's a very high threshold to apply it in the federal criminal context, and federal prosecutors are discouraged from using RICO for what are otherwise non-RICO prosecutions. And keep in mind that no one here was talking about civil RICO. The USAM does indeed set forth the policy followed by the Justice Department's Criminal Division. I agree it's not the law, but I never said it was.
And with respect to the rest of the points, I'm with my sock puppet...and my other sock puppet. Nothing further to add. I have one request: Please leave the ad hominem attacks or commentary out of this thread. Disagree with me all you want, but please let's not let this thread devolve into slinging insults.