5 ms·

What’re the odds of using RICO here?

danesparza 7y ago
As the 'R' in RICO stands for 'Racketeer' (which is explicitly a set of repeated criminal acts) and as Amazon hasn't been alleged to have committed any crimes ... I'd say slim to none.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  This subthread is entirely about the allegation that Amazon engaged in a repeated pattern of actively promoting wire fraud (a RICO predicate offense) as a commercial enterprise. They haven't previously been charged with a RICO predicate offense, but RICO doesn't require you to be separately charged with a predicate offense (either before or concurrently with RICO charges), only that the required relation to a predicate offense be in the allegation supporting the RICO charge. In fact, the central point in RICO is to allow charging people/orgs involved in schemes to promote predicate offenses for commercial benefit who might not otherwise be able to be charged as principals of those offenses.
  - m-p-3 7y ago
    So the best move for Amazon would be to do nothing / status quo? It's not like Amazon does this without any costs on their ends.
    - Nasrudith 7y ago
      It would follow the Backpage precedent consistently at least - and people would hate it. If they complain about the ethics of industry are low now wait until they cause "Johnny Tightlips" to become the safe legal standard.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      The best move, ethically, would be for Amazon to pay for the additional costs of fraud mitigation required by their commingling practice out of the additional profits which motivate the practice, rather than profiting by creating a negative externality.
  - micmil 7y ago
    The simple fact that Amazon shuts down stores that are found to be fraudulent kills any kind of RICO bullshit you want to spew.
    - journalctl 7y ago
      Hey so it was a suggestion. No need for the hostility.
lozaning 7y ago
Its almost _never_ RICO: https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-dammit/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-...
- journalctl 7y ago
  Thanks, that’s fascinating. I mean, I had a feeling this was the case, but I figured I’d ask.

As the 'R' in RICO stands for 'Racketeer' (which is explicitly a set of repeated criminal acts) and as Amazon hasn't been alleged to have committed any crimes ... I'd say slim to none.

dragonwriter 7y ago
This subthread is entirely about the allegation that Amazon engaged in a repeated pattern of actively promoting wire fraud (a RICO predicate offense) as a commercial enterprise. They haven't previously been charged with a RICO predicate offense, but RICO doesn't require you to be separately charged with a predicate offense (either before or concurrently with RICO charges), only that the required relation to a predicate offense be in the allegation supporting the RICO charge. In fact, the central point in RICO is to allow charging people/orgs involved in schemes to promote predicate offenses for commercial benefit who might not otherwise be able to be charged as principals of those offenses.
- m-p-3 7y ago
  So the best move for Amazon would be to do nothing / status quo? It's not like Amazon does this without any costs on their ends.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    It would follow the Backpage precedent consistently at least - and people would hate it. If they complain about the ethics of industry are low now wait until they cause "Johnny Tightlips" to become the safe legal standard.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    The best move, ethically, would be for Amazon to pay for the additional costs of fraud mitigation required by their commingling practice out of the additional profits which motivate the practice, rather than profiting by creating a negative externality.
- micmil 7y ago
  The simple fact that Amazon shuts down stores that are found to be fraudulent kills any kind of RICO bullshit you want to spew.
  - journalctl 7y ago
    Hey so it was a suggestion. No need for the hostility.

lozaning 7y ago

Its almost _never_ RICO: https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-dammit/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-...

journalctl 7y ago
Thanks, that’s fascinating. I mean, I had a feeling this was the case, but I figured I’d ask.