The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, passed as part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 and better known as RICO, was intended to control the activities and influence of mobsters and drug traffickers in legitimate businesses. Under RICO, it is a federal crime to use INCOME derived from a “pattern of racketeering activity” to acquire or maintain an interest in a business, or to conduct or participate in the affairs of a business through a pattern of racketeering activity, or to conspire to do any of the preceding acts. Critical to understanding RICO and its implications for American business are two terms, racketeering activity and pattern. Racketeering activity includes the commission of any of more than 30 federal or state criminal offenses, including arson, gambling, extortion, BRIBERY, and mail and wire FRAUD. Many of these crimes are commonly associated with criminal business activity, though others are less so. Under RICO, a pattern is defined as the commission of at least two related acts of racketeering within a 10-year period. RICO violators are subject to substantial fines and prison sentences of up to 20 years. In addition, they can lose any interest gained in enterprises through racketeering activity as well as property derived from MONEY generated through racketeering. Another important aspect of RICO is that it allows prosecutors to freeze a defendant’s ASSETS pretrial. This reduces a racketeer’s ability to hide or dispose of assets before conviction. While intended for use against organized-crime activities, RICO has been used to prosecute other criminal activity and poses a potential problem for American businesspeople. Since a “pattern” is defined as two or more action during a 10-year period, and common business practices such as DIRECT MAIL and TELEMARKETING are included as potential racketeering activities, on occasion nonorganized-crime businesses have been charged with RICO violations. Because a firm’s assets can be seized in advance of conviction, many individuals have plea bargained with prosecutors rather than risk having their businesses seized and disrupted under RICO. Critics of the law argue prosecutors have extended RICO well beyond its original intent. RICO also allows private individuals harmed by violations to recover treble DAMAGES (three times the amount of their actual loss). Opponents contend this encourages lawsuits that would normally have been brought forth under civil suits. RICO defenders counter that the law provides an effective deterrent to unscrupulous businesses. Deceptive pricing, false ADVERTISING, and selling products of poorer quality than advertised, if committed through the mail or over the telephone, have been prosecuted under RICO.