Philip Morris activity

The RICO statute requires “a pattern of racketeering activity” on the part of each defendant. “At least two acts of racketeering activity” are necessary to form a pattern. The district court found the requisite pattern committed by each Defendant, Philip Morris, and this finding is not erroneous.
A brief sampling of the 108 enumerated racketeering acts makes the point: Philip Morris, Reynolds, Brown & Williamson, Lorillard, American, and TI committed racketeering acts 24, 132, and 133 by mailing press releases containing false statements about the addictiveness and health consequences of smoking.
Philip Morris, Reynolds, Brown 29 & Williamson, Lorillard, American, Liggett, and CTR committed racketeering acts 66, 73, and 88 by mailing letters regarding funding of CTR’s “special projects” to create data supporting their fraudulent claims.
BATCo and Brown & Williamson committed racketeering acts through their mailings to each other concerning the enterprise’s position on the health effects and addictiveness of smoking as well as smoker compensation and nicotine. Altria committed racketeering in its efforts to coordinate Defendants’ public positions and fund CTR research projects to support their fraudulent claims.
As these examples demonstrate, the district court found each Defendant engaged in a “pattern of racketeering activity,” and that finding is not erroneous. See infra Parts III, IV. The 108 enumerated acts give us ample basis to review the district court’s finding. Although the district court may have concluded other racketeering acts were proven as well, we need look no further. Defendants correctly argue we must ensure the remedy imposed is tailored to “the violation found,” United States v. Microsoft, the voluminous findings detailing the contours of the scheme to defraud are more than sufficient to allow this review.
Given that a mailing or wire transmission need not itself be fraudulent, the remedy needs to be tailored to the scheme to defraud, not the specific use of the mail or wires. For similar reasons, we need not resolve Defendants’ challenges to the racketeering acts involving denials of marketing to youth. As the district court imposed no remedies specifically relating to youth marketing, our assessment whether the remedies are tailored to the violation found is unaffected by the associated racketeering acts. The remaining racketeering 30 acts are fully sufficient to support the district court’s finding of a pattern of racketeering activity as to each Defendant. Because these challenges have no impact on the outcome of this appeal, we decline to address them. The district court set forth findings sufficient to allow our review of its verdict of liability and imposition of sanction.