RICO Penalties and Sentencing

People searching for the sentence attached to a racketeering conviction usually want a single figure. The honest answer is that the figure printed in the statute is rarely what determines the outcome. A federal sentence on a count under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 is built from the underlying racketeering activity, the advisory guideline calculation that flows from it, the adjustments the court finds applicable, and the discretion the sentencing judge exercises after all of that is settled.

This page sets out the mechanics of that process rather than a ceiling. The statutory maximum applicable to a racketeering count should be confirmed against the current text of 18 U.S.C. § 1962 with counsel. If you are facing sentencing on a racketeering count, call Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C. at (888) 437-7747 to request a consultation.

On this page

Where the Sentence Actually Comes From

Federal sentencing runs in a fixed sequence. The probation officer prepares a presentence report. The advisory guideline range is calculated from an offense level and a criminal history category. The parties object, the court resolves the disputes, and the resulting range becomes the starting point rather than the answer. The judge then considers the statutory sentencing factors and imposes a sentence, which may fall inside the range, above it, or below it.

In a racketeering case the calculation stage matters more than in most prosecutions, because the guideline for a racketeering count does not carry a self-contained level. It sends the court back to the racketeering activity itself. That means the sentence is driven by conduct the jury may never have been asked to decide separately, and by conduct the defendant may not have committed personally.

How the Offense Level Is Built

The racketeering guideline directs the court to the offense level applicable to the underlying racketeering activity, or to a base level fixed by the guideline, whichever is greater. Where the pattern involves several kinds of conduct, the court works through each and applies the calculation that produces the highest level. A pattern that includes a fraud scheme is scored on the fraud guideline, with its loss table and its specific offense characteristics. A pattern that includes violence is scored on the guidelines for those offenses.

This is why two defendants convicted on the same count can face very different ranges. The count is identical; the conduct attributed to each is not. Establishing which racketeering acts are properly attributed to a particular client is therefore sentencing advocacy of the most consequential kind, and it begins long before the presentence report is drafted.

Adjustments the Court Applies After the Base Calculation

Role in the offense cuts both ways. An organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of criminal activity involving other participants receives an increase, scaled to the extent of the responsibility and the size of the operation. A participant who was substantially less culpable than the average participant may receive a reduction. In racketeering cases the government frequently seeks the aggravating adjustment on the strength of the enterprise narrative rather than on evidence about the individual, and that is a contest worth having.

Obstruction of justice raises the level where the defendant threatened a witness, destroyed evidence, or gave false testimony. Vulnerable victim, use of a minor, restraint of a victim, and abuse of a position of trust each have their own provisions and apply according to the underlying activity. Acceptance of responsibility can reduce the level where the defendant clearly demonstrates it, with a further reduction available on the government motion in qualifying cases.

Relevant Conduct

Relevant conduct is the concept that surprises defendants most. The guidelines direct the court to consider acts that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme, including acts of others that were within the scope of the jointly undertaken criminal activity, in furtherance of it, and reasonably foreseeable. Conduct on which a jury acquitted, and conduct never charged at all, can enter the calculation if the court finds it proved to the applicable standard.

In a racketeering prosecution this doctrine has unusual reach, because the enterprise theory is designed to connect events across time and participants. The defense response is to insist on the limits the guideline actually contains. Scope, furtherance, and foreseeability are separate requirements, and the government has to satisfy each of them as to this defendant rather than as to the enterprise in general.

Criminal History and the Sentencing Table

The criminal history category is calculated from prior sentences according to rules about their age, their length, and whether they were imposed for related conduct. The category and the offense level meet on the sentencing table to produce the advisory range. Career offender and armed career criminal provisions, where they apply, can displace the ordinary calculation entirely, and whether a particular prior conviction qualifies is a legal question that is litigated rather than assumed.

Statutory Sentencing Factors and the Judge’s Discretion

The guideline range is advisory. After calculating it, the court weighs the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense and to provide deterrence and protection of the public, the kinds of sentences available, the need to avoid unwarranted disparities among similarly situated defendants, and the need for restitution.

Disparity has particular force in racketeering cases, where a single indictment may charge people whose involvement ranged from direction of the enterprise to a peripheral errand. A sentencing memorandum that documents the difference, supported by records rather than adjectives, is the mechanism through which that argument is made.

Forfeiture, Restitution, and Supervision

A racketeering conviction carries forfeiture of interests acquired or maintained in violation of the statute, interests in the enterprise, and property derived from the racketeering activity. Forfeiture is imposed as part of the sentence and litigated on its own track, with its own evidentiary rules and its own opportunity for third parties to assert claims.

Restitution may be ordered where the racketeering activity caused identifiable loss to identifiable victims. A term of supervision ordinarily follows imprisonment, with conditions the court sets, and a violation of those conditions is dealt with separately from the original sentence. The length of any supervision term and the availability of restitution depend on statutory provisions that counsel should confirm against the current text.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why does this page not state the maximum sentence for racketeering?

Because the firm publishes statutory figures only where they have been verified against a source the firm maintains for that purpose, and the maximum for 18 U.S.C. § 1962 has not been verified for publication here. A number repeated from a general article is not a safe basis for a decision. The maximum is available in the current text of the statute and your lawyer can confirm it for your charge. What this page does provide is the mechanics that actually determine most federal sentences, which is the part general articles usually omit.

Can I be sentenced for conduct the jury never decided?

In the guideline calculation, yes, within limits. Relevant conduct includes acts that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme, and acts of co-participants that were within the scope of what you jointly undertook, in furtherance of it, and reasonably foreseeable to you. The court makes those findings on a lower standard than the one that governs conviction. The defense answer is to hold the government to each element of the relevant conduct rule as to you specifically rather than as to the group.

Does a racketeering count run consecutively to my other counts?

Whether terms run together or one after another is a decision the court makes, guided by the grouping rules and by statutory provisions that apply to particular offenses. Some counts carry their own statutory requirement of a consecutive term, and where such a count is charged alongside a racketeering count that requirement is set by the statute creating it rather than by 18 U.S.C. § 1962. Your lawyer should confirm the applicable provision against its current text.

Is the guideline range binding on the judge?

No. It is advisory and serves as the starting point. Grouping rules first determine whether counts and kinds of conduct are combined or counted separately, which sets the combined level. The judge then weighs the statutory sentencing factors and imposes a sentence inside, above, or below the range. Preparing for that stage is separate work from litigating the calculation, and it is where a documented account of the individual defendant does the most.

How much does acceptance of responsibility help?

It reduces the offense level where the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance, with a further reduction available in qualifying cases on a government motion. The size of the reduction is fixed by the guideline rather than negotiated. Acceptance can be lost by conduct inconsistent with it, including obstruction and continued criminal activity while on release.

Will my property be forfeited even if it was bought legitimately?

Forfeiture reaches interests acquired or maintained in violation of the statute, interests in the enterprise, and property derived from the racketeering activity. Property with no connection to any of those categories is not forfeitable on that basis, although substitute asset provisions can extend the reach of the government where forfeitable property has been dissipated. Third parties who hold an interest have their own process for asserting it.

Working With Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C.

Sentencing work on a racketeering count starts with the presentence report and with the attribution question underneath it: which acts are properly assigned to this client, on what evidence, and under which guideline.

Mr. Sris, Owner and Founder of Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C., is a former prosecutor and is admitted in Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and New York. The firm has been practicing since 1997. Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys handle criminal defense matters across those jurisdictions, which matters in federal practice because a single investigation frequently reaches conduct, witnesses, and records in more than one state. Mr. Sris brings a background in accounting and information systems from George Mason University, applied to complex financial and technology-related cases.

The firm serves Northern Virginia from 1655 Fort Myer Dr, Suite 700, Room 719, Arlington, VA 22209 and central Virginia from 7400 Beaufont Springs Drive, Suite 300, Room 395, Richmond, VA 23225. By appointment. Call (888) 437-7747 to schedule. Request a consultation. Reach our location at (888) 437-7747.

This page provides general information about sentencing on federal racketeering counts under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. Results may vary.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Attorney responsible for this advertising: Mr. Sris.