## Facts

- Robert A. Beck II served as president, CEO, director, and shareholder of Southeastern Insurance Group (SIG), an insurance holding company.
- Beck alleged SIG’s senior officers and directors engaged in a scheme involving fraudulent transactions that harmed the company and its shareholders and constituted racketeering activity.
- Beck claimed that after he contacted insurance regulators about the alleged misconduct, the officers and directors arranged to remove him from SIG.
- Beck alleged his injury was the loss of his employment and position, caused by his termination as an overt act taken in furtherance of a RICO conspiracy.
- Beck sought civil damages under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), alleging a conspiracy under § 1962(d) to violate § 1962(a), (b), and (c).

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff may recover civil damages under § 1964(c) for a § 1962(d) RICO conspiracy based on injury caused by an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy when that overt act is not itself racketeering activity or otherwise independently wrongful under RICO.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Beck’s civil RICO conspiracy claim.
- The Court held that injury caused only by an overt act that is not racketeering activity and not otherwise independently wrongful under RICO does not support a § 1964(c) claim predicated on § 1962(d).
- Because Beck’s alleged injury flowed from his termination, and termination was not a predicate act or a separate substantive RICO violation, he failed to state a civil RICO conspiracy damages claim.

## Legal Principles

- Section 1964(c) authorizes civil damages only for a person “injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962.”
- For a § 1962(d) conspiracy, civil damages require injury from conduct that is independently wrongful under RICO, not merely any act done to advance the conspiracy.
- The Court interpreted “injured ... by reason of” a RICO conspiracy in light of common-law civil conspiracy principles: recovery depends on injury from an act that is itself tortious; in the RICO context, this means an act prohibited by RICO (e.g., racketeering activity or other § 1962-proscribed conduct).
- A plaintiff cannot base civil RICO conspiracy damages on harms linked to non-racketeering overt acts that are not themselves violations of RICO’s substantive provisions.

## Conclusion

Civil RICO conspiracy liability for damages under § 1964(c) requires that the plaintiff’s injury be caused by racketeering activity or other conduct independently wrongful under RICO; injury caused solely by a non-racketeering overt act such as termination of employment is not actionable under § 1962(d).


Beck v. Prupis, 529 U.S. 494 (2000)