V. Corey, 566 F. 2d 429, 431 (1977)

848 Words4 Pages

2. Predicate Acts The De Sole and Howard Plaintiffs have alleged predicate acts of mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343. In addition, Howard alleges false labeling of visual art, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2318, as a predicate act. Hammer argues, however, that Plaintiffs have not alleged that Hammer committed a predicate act and, in particular, have not alleged that "Hammer used the mail or the wires for the purpose of executing the alleged scheme." (Hammer Br. (De Sole Dkt. No. 214) at 16-17; Hammer Reply Br. (De Sole Dkt. No 240) at 29-31; [*39] Hammer Br. (Howard Dkt. No. 267) at 17-19) The Second Circuit has held, however, that "[t]o prove a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, [one] need only show that a defendant was one of the participants in a scheme …show more content…

Corey, 566 F.2d 429, 431 (2d Cir. 1977); see also Chanayil v. Gulati, 169 F.3d 168, 170-71 (2d Cir. 1999) ("The elements of mail . . . fraud include (1) the existence of a scheme to defraud, (2) the defendant's knowing participation in the scheme, and (3) the use of . . . mail . . . communications in interstate commerce in furtherance of the scheme."); Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Jersey, Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 113 F. Supp. 2d 345, 367 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) ("RICO liability for any particular defendant is not . . . premised on establishing that each

Open Document