http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/R/RI/RICO_(law)3.htm

[....]

An example reference of failed RICO allegations

Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim {http://www.casp.net/wollers1.html} is a company that wrongfully alleged RICO against a victim who was engaged in a long-standing civil case against Scientology {http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/S/Sc/Scientology.htm}

The RICO claim was dismissed for obvious reasons (lack of any evidence to support the RICO claims. Wollersheim, however, eventually won his civil lawsuit for many millions of dollars.) See: Scientology Legal Fictions Exposed -- Wollersheim 1997 -- {http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/wollershiem-1977.htm} for further commentary and coverage of the use of fictitious RICO.

An example of a failed RICO resulting in sanctions

On May 2, 1994, Helena Kobrin, counsel for the Church of Scientology, was ordered to pay sanctions in the total sum of $17,775 for filing a frivolous complaint in federal court. The case is entitled Religious Technology Center, Inc. v. Frank Gerbode, and is reported in the RICO Business Disputes Guide published by Commerce Clearing House, Inc. The citation is Religious Technology Center, Inc. v. Frank Gerbode, [Current Transfer Binder] RICO Bus. Disp. Guide (CCH) par. 8595 (C.D. Cal. May 2, 1994). The case was decided by Judge A. Wallace Tashima of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case number is CV 93-2226 AWT. Ms. Kobrin prepared and filed an amended complaint on behalf of plaintiffs Religious Technology Center and the Church of Scientology International against defendants David Mayo and the Church of New Civilization. Id. at 15,790. The amended complaint alleged that defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO). Id. The Court dismissed the action. Id. The defendants then filed a motion for sanctions against, among others, Helena Kobrin and her firm, Bowles & Moxon. Id. The Court granted the motion after observing:

"This RICO complaint does not pass muster under Rule 11(b)(2) that the claims be 'warranted by existing law.' Neither is any 'nonfrivolous argument' made 'for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law' in support of plaintiffs' RICO theory. * * * The claims are frivolous. Alleging the RICO claims in the amended complaint was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances."

Id. at 15,792 (footnotes omitted). The Court concluded as follows:

"IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendants shall recover from Attorney Helena K. Kobrin and the law firm of Bowles & Moxon, jointly and severally, monetary sanctions under Rule 11 in the sum of $8,887.50, as partial reimbursement for attorneys' fees incurred in defending against the amended complaint.

2. In addition, Attorney Helena K. Kobrin and the law firm of Bowles & Moxon, jointly and severally, shall pay to the Clerk of the Court a monetary penalty in the sum of $8,887.50, as a further sanction."

Id. at 15,794. It is unknown whether Ms. Kobrin, or any other party, filed an appeal from the District Court's order imposing sanctions. If such an appeal was filed, it is unknown whether the appeal is still pending, or what the result was if it has been decided. The District Court's order imposing sanctions may not be final.

[....]

Go Back