Bancorp International Group Inc (fka BCIT)

[mretgnol]

By the way,

How many times do you think Megas and Stew pulled this scam in the US and offshore?

Captain Pro Se met his match with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


https://casetext.com/case/amiron-dev-corp-v-sytner


1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Defendant Sytner argues that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' RICO claims because the principle actions and events underlying Plaintiffs' claims occurred outside of the United States. Although Defendant Sytner is correct that the extraterritorial application of RICO is limited, the Second Circuit has clearly stated that "the question of a statute's extraterritorial reach is properly analyzed as a merits question pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), not as a question of subject matter jurisdiction raised by FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1)." Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Access Indus., Inc., 631 F.3d 29, 32 (2d Cir. 2010). Accordingly, Defendant Sytner's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED.

2. Failure to State a Claim

To state a RICO claim under Section 1962(a), (b), or (c), a plaintiff must plead seven elements: "(1) that the defendant (2) through the commission of two or more acts (3) constituting a 'pattern' (4) of 'racketeering activity' (5) directly or indirectly invests in, or maintains an interest in, or participates in (6) an 'enterprise' (7) the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce." Moss v. Morgan Stanley, Inc., 719 F.2d 5, 17 (2d Cir. 1983) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)—(c)). "The failure of any one element is fatal to a RICO claim." Scheiner v. Wallace, 832 F. Supp. 687, 699 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). Defendant Sytner argues, inter alia, that Plaintiffs have failed to plead a pattern of racketeering activity. The Court agrees.

Plaintiffs did not address this argument in their opposition brief.

To establish a "pattern of racketeering activity" a plaintiff must plead at least two predicate acts of racketeering activity committed within a ten year period that are related and that "amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity." Cofacrèdit, S.A. v. Windsor Plumbing Supply Co., 187 F.3d 229, 242 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting H.J. Inc. v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 239, 109 S. Ct. 2893, 106 L. Ed. 2d 195 (1989)); see also 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5) (defining "pattern of racketeering" as "at least two acts of racketeering activity" committed in a ten year period); Spool v. World Child Int'l Adoption Agency, 520 F.3d 178, 183 (2d Cir. 2008). Assuming, arguendo, that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged two related predicate acts of racketeering activity, the Court finds that the Complaint fails to plead continuity.

The continuity requirement "can be satisfied either by showing a 'closed-ended' pattern--a series of related predicate acts extending over a substantial period of time--or by demonstrating an 'open-ended' pattern of racketeering activity that poses a threat of continuing criminal conduct beyond the period during which the predicate acts were performed." Spool,