Elements for a Claim of RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, NRS 207.470)

In Nevada, the elements for a claim of civil RICO violations (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) are:

1. Defendants engaged in racketeering activities as defined in NRS 207.390 and a racketeering enterprise as is defined in NRS 207.380;
2. Defendants acting directly, and in conspiracy with one another or through their syndicate, participated directly in racketeering activity by engaging in at least two crimes related to racketeering;
3. Defendant’s activities have the same or similar pattern, intent, results, accomplices, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events;
4. Defendant acquired or maintained directly or indirectly an interest in, or control of, any enterprise, or defendants are employed by or associated with any enterprise to conduct or participate directly or indirectly in the affairs of the enterprise through a racketeering activity;
5. Plaintiff’s injuries flow from the defendant’s violation of a predicate Nevada RICO act;
6. Plaintiff’s injury was be proximately caused by the defendant’s violation of the predicate act;
7. Plaintiff did not participate in the commission of the predicate act; and
8. Plaintiff is entitled to institute a civil action for recovery of treble damages proximately caused by the RICO violations. NRS 207.470(1).

Alternatively, the claim can be stated:

1. Defendants, and each of them, engaged in conduct which constitutes a pattern of racketeering activity pursuant to Nevada Revised Statutes, including “taking property from another under circumstances not amounting to robbery”, “embezzlement of money or property valued at $250 or more”, or “obtaining possession of money or property valued at $250 or more, or obtaining a signature by means of false pretenses.”
2. Defendants, and each of them, engaged in conduct which constitutes a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of NRS 207.470;
3. Defendants, and each of them, committed at least two separate crimes relating to racketeering constituting a pattern of racketeering activity. They are: [set out in subparagraphs] (the “Predicate Acts”);
4. Defendants’ crimes are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents but are a part of a pattern of criminal activity;
5. The Defendants, and each of them, violated NRS 207.400;
6. Plaintiff has suffered damages;
7. Plaintiff is entitled to treble damages against Defendants, and each of them. NRS 207.470(1);
8. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages; and
9. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs as damages. NRS 207.470(1).

NRS 207.470; Stoddart v. Miller, 2008 WL 6070835 (Nev. 2008 ); Siragusa v. Brown, 114 Nev. 1384, 971 P.2d 801 (1999); Gordon v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 12 Nev. 216, 231, 913 P.2d 240, 250-51 (1996); Cummings v. Charter Hosp. of Las Vegas, Inc., 111 Nev. 639, 896 P.2d 1137 (1995); Allum v. Valley Bank of Nevada, 109 Nev. 280, 849 P.2d 297 (1993); Hale v. Burkhardt, 104 Nev. 632, 634, 764 P.2d 866, 867 (1988).

Jay Young

Hon. Jay Young (Ret.) is a retired judicial officer with decades of experience presiding over complex civil litigation matters. Following a distinguished career on the bench, Judge Young now serves as a mediator, arbitrator, and court‑appointed special master, and discovery referee.  Judge Young brings a disciplined, impartial, and results‑oriented approach to dispute resolution. Judge Young is based in Nevada and accepts appointments statewide and nationally, subject to agreement or court order. He can be reached at 855.777.4557 or info@armadr.com

Known for judicial temperament, analytical rigor, and practical problem‑solving, Judge Young assists litigants and counsel in resolving high‑stakes disputes efficiently and with integrity and employing best practices. He is recognized by U.S. News and World Report’s publication Best Lawyers as Arbitration Lawyer of the Year.