X hits on this document

PDF document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA - page 25 / 38

108 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

25 / 38

deliberate overcharging for title insurance, ignoring TIRBOP rate structures, misrepresenting

amounts due, and lulling Plaintiffs into a false sense of security through the preparation of the HUD-

1. These facts and inferences arise from Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and the RICO Case

Statement which at this stage must be construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs

have sufficiently alleged that the enterprise consists of business activity surrounding title insurance

transactions combined with racketeering activity involving repeated overstating amounts due and

misappropriation of excess funds collected. See, e.g., United States v. Console, 13 F.3d 641, 651-52

(3d Cir. 1993) (“[I]t is not necessary to show that the enterprise has some function wholly unrelated

to the racketeering activity, but rather that it has an existence beyond that which is necessary merely

to commit each of the acts charged as predicate racketeering offenses.”) (quoting United States

v.Riccobene, 709 F.2d 214, 223-24 (3d Cir. 1983)). Accordingly, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged

with particularity a pattern of racketeering which encompasses fraudulent behavior on the part of

Commonwealth Land and its title agents that existed apart from a normal business relationship and

is distinct from the enterprise described above. (Pl. Am. RICO St., 6b.)

II. Plaintiffs Sufficiently Allege Predicate Acts of Mail and Wire Fraud.

Defendant next argues that Plaintiffs have failed to allege predicate acts of mail or wire fraud,

which are required to sustain a RICO claim. (Def. Mot. to Dismiss, 28.) The elements necessary

to establish a claim for mail or wire fraud are: (1) a scheme to defraud; (2) the use of the mails or

wires for the purpose of executing the scheme; and (3) fraudulent intent. United States v. Pharis, 298

F.3d 228, 234 (3d Cir. 2002). Unlike mail fraud, wire fraud has an interstate commerce component

that must be satisfied. See 18 U.S.C. § 1343.

25

Document info
Document views108
Page views108
Page last viewedSat Dec 10 04:09:25 UTC 2016
Pages38
Paragraphs853
Words11377

Comments