遏制不可遏制:用反对治外法权的推定划定RICO的边界

IF 1 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW
Miranda Lievsay
{"title":"遏制不可遏制:用反对治外法权的推定划定RICO的边界","authors":"Miranda Lievsay","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2719853","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. the Supreme Court disseminated a two-step test to determine the extraterritorial reach of all federal statutes, radically shifting the application of U.S. laws. Nowhere has this decision caused more upheaval than in the context of analyzing claims under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO): while courts have reached broad agreement that RICO does not apply extraterritorially, courts disagree over the proper standard to determine when a RICO case is domestic or foreign. This Note explores RICO’s origins, the statute’s legislative history, and the evolution of RICO’s extraterritorial application in Morrison’s shadow. This Note then sifts through the conflicting approaches employed by courts faced with RICO cases involving foreign elements before ultimately advocating an alternative approach that accurately applies the Supreme Court’s Morrison decision and faithfully embodies RICO’s legislative history and intent.","PeriodicalId":47517,"journal":{"name":"Fordham Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Containing the Uncontainable: Drawing RICO's Border with the Presumption Against Extraterritoriality\",\"authors\":\"Miranda Lievsay\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2719853\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. the Supreme Court disseminated a two-step test to determine the extraterritorial reach of all federal statutes, radically shifting the application of U.S. laws. Nowhere has this decision caused more upheaval than in the context of analyzing claims under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO): while courts have reached broad agreement that RICO does not apply extraterritorially, courts disagree over the proper standard to determine when a RICO case is domestic or foreign. This Note explores RICO’s origins, the statute’s legislative history, and the evolution of RICO’s extraterritorial application in Morrison’s shadow. This Note then sifts through the conflicting approaches employed by courts faced with RICO cases involving foreign elements before ultimately advocating an alternative approach that accurately applies the Supreme Court’s Morrison decision and faithfully embodies RICO’s legislative history and intent.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47517,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Fordham Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-01-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Fordham Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2719853\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fordham Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2719853","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在莫里森诉澳大利亚国民银行案(Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.)中,最高法院推广了一种两步测试法,以确定所有联邦法规的治外法权,从根本上改变了美国法律的适用范围。在分析根据《受敲诈勒索影响和腐败组织法》(RICO)提出的索赔时,这一决定引起的动荡最大:虽然法院已达成广泛共识,认为RICO不适用治外法权,但法院在确定RICO案件是国内案件还是国外案件的适当标准上存在分歧。本文探讨了RICO的起源,法规的立法历史,以及RICO在莫里森阴影下的域外适用的演变。在最终倡导一种准确适用最高法院莫里森判决并忠实体现RICO立法历史和意图的替代方法之前,本文将筛选法院在面对涉及外国要素的RICO案件时所采用的相互冲突的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Containing the Uncontainable: Drawing RICO's Border with the Presumption Against Extraterritoriality
In Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. the Supreme Court disseminated a two-step test to determine the extraterritorial reach of all federal statutes, radically shifting the application of U.S. laws. Nowhere has this decision caused more upheaval than in the context of analyzing claims under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO): while courts have reached broad agreement that RICO does not apply extraterritorially, courts disagree over the proper standard to determine when a RICO case is domestic or foreign. This Note explores RICO’s origins, the statute’s legislative history, and the evolution of RICO’s extraterritorial application in Morrison’s shadow. This Note then sifts through the conflicting approaches employed by courts faced with RICO cases involving foreign elements before ultimately advocating an alternative approach that accurately applies the Supreme Court’s Morrison decision and faithfully embodies RICO’s legislative history and intent.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Fordham Law Review is a scholarly journal serving the legal profession and the public by discussing current legal issues. Approximately 75 articles, written by students or submitted by outside authors, are published each year. Each volume comprises six books, three each semester, totaling over 3,000 pages. Managed by a board of up to eighteen student editors, the Law Review is a working journal, not merely an honor society. Nevertheless, Law Review membership is considered among the highest scholarly achievements at the Law School.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信