Has anyone used the Federal RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) civil provisions against a CRA or an OC for inaccurate reporting? I came across an article that suggests that the RICO act would be a superior alternative to the FCRA. (Rameden, David, When the database is wrong...Do consumers have any effective remedies against credit reporting agencies or information providers?, Commercial Law Journal, Volume 100, Number 3). While this article is seven years old, most of his analysis rings true today. Unlike the FCRA, RICO provides for TREBLE damages. The three underlying elements of a RICO claim are: an enterprise, racketeering activity, and a pattern. The existence of an enterprise and the pattern elements are obvious when dealing with CAs, CRAs and OCs. According to the article the racketeering act could be fraud - described in the article as the "misrepresentation of material information with an intent to deceive." Misrepresentation of material information?? I don't think we'd have any problem establishing that element where CRAs are concerned. The article goes on to state that "intent can be satisfied by the equivalent of a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the information." In the authors words, "where the credit bureaus investigation procedures are a mere charade, and especially where the same errors recur more than once, it should be possible to satisfy Scienter" (intent). Does anyone know of any credit reporting cases under RICO? Is the RICO act a potential silver bullet??
Re: RICO act against CAs, CRAs, OCs Great citation and very interesting thought. I look forward to this discussion as it unfolds. (I wish I could contribute something substantive about RICO myself.) Doc
Welcome to the board! Especially since you've snapped up my favorite theory. To my knowledge no one has tried. I haven't been able to get the legal beagles on here interested, hehe. Obstructing commerce was my thought on the subject.
Re: RICO act against CAs, CRAs, OCs I have exactly the test case too. I posted a situation in the thread "Astonishing CA Stupidity" http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...177398&highlight=astonishing+ca+st#post177398 Here is the background: Absolutely Astonishing Stupidity! Recently I've heard talk about medical collections being illegal because there is no medical release from the patient to the CA allowing them to release medical info to the CRA. I've been skeptical but am fast becoming a believer. My wife had a 6-year-old collection from a podiatrist who used to be a close friend of hers, (before he wound up in jail for writing himself prescriptions). As a result of this friendship she saw him for 15 years without ever getting a bill for services so this last time she DID NOT sign a financial responsibility agreement. Well he went outta business and somehow a CA got the bill. We never heard from the CA except for one call, years ago, from a lady who freely discussed the account with me, (a 3rd party?). After learning so much from this site I decided to Validate with the CA, knowing in advance they could not perform. I sent CRRR letter in demand for Val. And a cease and desist via FDCPA. "Linda" called me this morning to discuss the letter. LOLOL (oh, it gets better) She stated that she was calling about the letter and just wanted to let Sandy, (wife) know that she sent a "Permission to release medical information" to have Sandy sign it and send it back. She said: "Once received I can proceed to send her the info she requested in her letter. Namely, copies of all these bills we sent her years ago. Linda continues: "Sandy says in her letter that we have never made contact with her". "We sent 7 bills and made numerous calls to her regarding this account and she ignored it all". "I'm just calling to let S know it's coming so she doesn't just throw it in the trash like she obviously has done with all the other bills we've sent". OOOOh that got me goin. I was floored! Wait a minute I said; you need Sandy's permission to send her copies of bills you allege to have already sent her years ago without her permission? And now suddenly you need her permission to send copies? The poor girl was stuck, didn't know what to say. Um...eee..eer.um "well", says Linda "I guess I'll just have to turn this over to our atty for a law suit". I don't know weather my emotions got the best of me, or the fighting back the laughter but I did make a mistake, I said You maybe we should, (turn it over to your lawyer that is). Damn this gave her the excuse she wanted to hang up on me. When I asked for clarification Linda said; "as usual you're not following me". I interrupted; WHAT? What is that supposed to mean? We have never talked before now and we've been on the phone 3 minutes? And you say "as usual I'm not following you". She said: "Yes - all I need is this release and I will send her the info she requests. Other than that I will just turn this over to our Atty. For collections - GOOBYE MR. TAYLOR. CLICK. Apparently there may be some truth to the medical release thing. I spoke to an expert this morning and he said they are trying to get Sandy to sign a medical release so they CAN legally send info to the CRA because they have thus far done so illegally.
Re: RICO act against CAs, CRAs, OCs Here's what I found out as I began DIGGING. This "Dr." is in prison for running a raketeering operation and the CA is trying to collect. Here's the update on another thread: "Butch's Nutcase Letter". @ http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...182483&highlight=astonishing+ca+st#post182483 ***************************** May xx, 2002 Credit Bureau xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cert Mail # 7054 7512 3698 5298 (RRR, 2 pages) Regarding erroneous listing on my credit report. Dear Sirs: I understand your desire to have me demonstrate my identity. However I don't believe I am required to provide all that inconsequential information on your questionnaire. This request is properly notarized and a copy of my Social Security card is enclosed. I received a form from the collection agency, (the first time I was made aware of the identity of the alleged original creditor) asking me to sign so they can obtain validation from the original creditor, and also contained an agreement, again requesting my signature, that I am responsible for this erroneous bill, (copy enclosed). This form was sent AFTER they received my dispute with them. Since I made this request last week I've done my homework. This Doctors name is Dr. Alex L. Kushkin, who is alleged to be the provider of service. Incredibly Dr. Kushkin, (if he really is a dr.) is now doing time in a federal penitentiary for making false claims to collect insurance, writing himself prescriptions to feed his drug habit, etc., among other crimes. The indictment, (which I obtained off the net) states: "the defendant Dr. Alex L. Kushkin, filled out documents which indicated that he performed podiatry services,..... when in fact he performed no such services. These documents were used by office staff employed by defendant ... to prepare claim forms which were sent to Medicare." (copy enclosed). It's obvious that Medicare is not the ONLY recipient of these fraudulent documents/claims because I now am being billed for something for which I DO NOT owe. Though I do know my rights pursuant to the FCRA and the FDCPA, (I know you know my rights too) I am unfamiliar with such areas of law as FRAUD, COMPLICITY IN THE CONTINUING OPERATION OF AN ONGOING CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE. RACKETEERING, EXTORTION, RICO. You name it. I am justifiably very upset and by the time I meet with my attorney staff Friday, I will be extremely familiar. May I suggest that you remove this item from my credit report immediately, if not sooner, and thus avoid potential culpability. After all it is perfectly obvious they cannot produce the information which I am entitled, by law, to demand. This letter in no way should be considered a waiver of my right to pursue this further. Thanks for letting me ramble and thanks for your help. Warm Regards, *************** I figured heck, with a case like this I might as well have some fun too. This is all true too, btw.
I accessed the article online through an academic library's subscription to Proquest. I don't know if the article is otherwise available to the public on the internet. This journal should be available in most law libraries, or if you are a student you may be able to get it through your college library.
