Indiana RICO Act applies to 'foot soldiers'

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
An Indiana Supreme Court decision Feb. 27 regarding the state's racketeering laws creates a larger net of potential defendants that can be charged under it.

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that under Indiana's RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act, a person can be implicated under the state act even if he or she doesn't participate in directing the racketeering activity.

In Linda Keesling, Harold Lephart, et al. v. Frederick Beegle III, John Bucholtz, et al., No. 18S04-0704-CV-150, the high court accepted transfer to rule on whether liability under the Indiana RICO Act extends only to people who direct racketeering activity, the "generals," or whether it extends below the managerial or supervisory level to the "foot soldiers."

The Supreme Court ruled that the Indiana RICO Act uses "significantly broader" language than the federal act, which states that it's unlawful for anyone employed by or associated with an enterprise to "conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt."

Under Indiana's act, a person can be charged if he or she "knowingly or intentionally conducts or otherwise participates in the activities of that enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity."

As a result of this difference in language, the Supreme Court overturned summary judgment in favor of defendants Dennis Baugher; Baugher's company, Florida Underwriting; and William Jones with respect to the Indiana RICO Act, finding Indiana's act imposes liability on both persons at or below a racketeering enterprise's level of manager or supervisor.

The plaintiffs are Indiana residents who purchased pay telephones and entered into service agreements to install, service, and maintain the phones. The plaintiffs were passive investors in the program that targeted investors across the country, relying upon the promoters of the deal to select locations, install, and service phones, as well as obtain all regulatory certifications.

Kelley Johnson, associate at Cohen & Malad and an attorney on the case, described the program as a pyramid scheme in which the only way people could receive money was to recruit more people into the program.

The promoters violated federal security laws by not registering the pay-telephone program with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Baugher, president of Florida Underwriting, was not one of the ultimate promoters of the program but did have an agreement with the promoters to recruit sales representatives and receive commission on the sales made by his recruits. Baugher recruited Jones; Jones in turn recruited another person, who made the sales to plaintiffs Keesling and the Lehparts.

The plaintiffs sued, alleging violations of the Indiana Securities Act, the Indiana RICO Act, fraud, conversion, and theft. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of Baugher, Florida Underwriting, and Jones with respect to the fraud, conversion, and theft allegations; however, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment in their favor with respect to the Indiana Securities and Indiana RICO Act allegations.

The Court of Appeals had previously ruled that in order for someone to be charged under the Indiana RICO Act, the person must do more than just participate in the activities of the enterprise but actually participate in the operation or management of it, Yoder Grain, Inc. v. Antalis, 722 N.E.2d 840, 846 (Ind. [Ct.] App. 2000).

However, in this case, the Court of Appeals took a different approach, finding Indiana's RICO Act is broader than the federal statute and that merely participating in the activities of an enterprise can allow a person to be charged under the act.

The Supreme Court agrees with the Court of Appeal's decision in this case, ruling that the scope of liability under the Indiana act is broader than the federal act because it imposes liability not only on the person who "conducts" the activities, but also one who "otherwise participates in the activities," wrote Justice Frank Sullivan.

The legislature intended for the Indiana act to reach "a racketeering enterprise's 'foot soldiers' as well as its 'generals,'" he wrote.

The Supreme Court vacated the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Baugher, Florida Underwriting, and Jones with respect to the Indiana RICO Act allegations and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. In all other respects, the high court affirms the Court of Appeals' ruling.

"This definitely solidifies that the Indiana act is different from the federal act, which I think has been a question for some time," Johnson said.

Bradley Skolnik, attorney at Stewart & Irwin and former Indiana Securities commissioner, said this ruling will give plaintiffs more opportunities to file RICO cases in Indiana.

"I would characterize this as an investor-friendly decision of the court," he said. "It certainly broadens the scope of potential defendants in any security fraud or RICO action."

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.