holding that ordering restitution “is not denied to the district court because a defendant must also forfeit the proceeds of illegal activity”
Summary of this case from United States v. KirbyNo. 88-6235.
February 21, 1989, October TERM, 1988.
C.A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 853 F. 2d 876.
holding that ordering restitution “is not denied to the district court because a defendant must also forfeit the proceeds of illegal activity”
Summary of this case from United States v. Kirbyholding that a RICO enterprise may consist of individuals associated in fact with corporations
Summary of this case from DeWit v. Firstar Corp.finding no meaningful distinction between seizure made under state RICO law and state obscenity statute
Summary of this case from U.S. v. Calif. Publishers Liquidat.requiring separate jury instructions, deliberations and closing arguments for forfeiture after guilt phase, but declining to require evidentiary hearings in all cases
Summary of this case from U.S. v. ElgersmaFull title:GILES v. GARWOOD ET AL
Court:U.S.
Date published: Feb 21, 1989
The Government cannot avail itself of the benefits of the RICO forfeiture statute when it chooses not to…
Webster v. Omnitrition Intern., Inc.The participation of a corporation in a racketeering scheme is sufficient, of itself, to give the enterprise…