SUBCHAPTER C.-INJUNCTIONS (Section 4021) During its early history, the English court of chancery issued injunctions to restrain the commission of certain criminal acts.1 However, with the increasing stability of the English government, the need for the enforcement of the criminal laws by the chancellors diminished until by the end of the 15th century it had ceased entirely. Thus the rule became established under the common law that equity would not interfere by the issuance of an injunction to prevent the commission of crimes. Exceptions, however, soon developed to this general rule. Thus if an act endangered property rights or was inimical to public health or safety, equity could enjoin such act regardless of whether the act was also made criminal by a statute. Today it is generally conceded that a legislature has the authority to authorize the enforcement of a criminal statute by injunction." 3 Congress has not, as a general practice, provided injunctive relief for the prevention of crimes about to take place. In certain fields, however, Congress has permitted the issuance of injunctions to restrain certain acts which may constitute criminal conduct or facilitate criminal conduct. Thus injunctive relief has long been available for violation of the fraud provisions of the Securities and Exchange Act, and these provisions have been used by the Securities and Exchange Commission on numerous occasions with excellent results. In the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 Congress authorized the issuance of injunctions and restraining orders in an effort to free interstate commerce from the corrupt control of organized crime. Similarly, the use of injunctions to prevent acts deemed detrimental to the economy is widespread in the antitrust field. Another area where there is a great need for injunctive relief is in fraudulent scheme cases. While present law provides limited injunctive relief, this relief is inadequate. First, the relief is restricted to the detention of incoming mail. It does not reach the situation where letters continue to be sent to further a scheme and remittances are collected personally from the customer or to fraudulent schemes which do not entail the use of the mails. Second, the required administrative proceedings entail considerable delay which is compounded by the extra time and energy necessary to bring an injunctive suit in the district court while the administrative proceedings are pending. Since the investigation of fraudulent schemes often takes months, if not years, 11 Holdsworth, A History of English Law 405, 406 (7th ed. 1956). 2 See Mack, The Revival of Criminal Equity, 16 Harv. L. Rev. 390, 391 (1903). Pomeroy, Equity Jurisdiction, p. 949 (5th ed. 1971). 4 See Case Comments, Equity's Power to Enjoin Criminal Acts, 16 Wash. and Lee L. Rev. 303, 305 (1959). 5 15 U.S.C. 77t. 618 U.S.C. 1964; see subchapter A of chapter 40. 7 See 39 U.S.C. 3005 (a). before the case is ready for criminal prosecution, innocent people continue to be victimized while the investigation is in progress. For these reasons, the Committee has concluded that prior to the commencement of a criminal action the Attorney General should be empowered to bring suit to enjoin acts or practices which would constitute a violation of section 1734.8 This injunctive procedure is similar to that used in S.E.C. cases and will provide a quick and effective remedy while the criminal process is taking its course. SECTION 4021. INJUNCTIONS AGAINST FRAUD This section provides that if the Attorney General receives satisfactory evidence that a person is engaged in an act or practice which constitutes a violation of section 1734, he may bring an action in a district court of the United States to enjoin such acts or practices. It is left to the discretion of the Attorney General to determine which factors will constitute satisfactory evidence for the initiation of the action. While this section is designed to enable the Attorney General to seek such relief prior to the commencement of a criminal action, the Attorney General can institute such action at any time. As a civil action, the section requires the Attorney General to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the acts or practices sought to be enjoined constitute a violation of section 1734. If the evidence is sufficient, the court may issue a permanent or temporary injunction or restraining order or it may take such other equitable relief as is appropriate to ensure that such acts or practices are discontinued. 8 Executing a Fraudulent Scheme. CHAPTER 41.-ANCILIARY PRIVATE CIVIL REMEDIES Chapter 41 consists of two subchapters. Subchapter A provides a civil cause of action for persons injured as a result of racketeering activities. It also provides a civil cause of action for persons whose oral private communications have unlawfully been intercepted. These provisions are reenactments of similar provisions in current law. Subchapter B is new and provides compensation for victims of crime. The concept of compensating victims of crime is rapidly gaining favor in the States and the Committee believes that this is an important step forward in the criminal law field. The funds used to pay the victims will come from a special revolving fund set up in the Treasury of the United States. Part of the funds used for this program will be obtained from the payment of criminal fines. SUBCHAPTER A.-PRIVATE ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES (Sections 4101-4102) This subchapter provides for a private civil action by which a person may seek civil damages as a result of a defendant's violation of sections 1801 (Operating a Racketeering Syndicate), 1802 (Racketeering), 1803 (Washing Racketeering Proceeds), or 1521 (Eavesdropping). Such private actions exist under current law. The authorization of such actions is in recognition of the fact that violation of the enumerated sections in this subchapter can have far greater consequences to the victim than in the ordinary criminal cases-consequences that often can readily be redressed through money damages. In addition, it is hoped that the knowledge that a person will be subject to substantial civil damages will serve as an effective deterrent to the commission of these offenses. SECTION 4101. CIVIL ACTION AGAINST A RACKETEERING OFFENDER This section provides that a person may bring a civil suit in a district court of the United States against a defendant for damages caused to his business or property as a result of the defendant's violation of sections 1801 (Operating a Racketeering Syndicate), 1802 (Racketeering), or 1803 (Washing Racketeering Proceeds) the basic organized crime offenses set forth in the Code. The injured person may recover three-fold the damages sustained as well as reasonable attorney's and other litigation costs. 1 See 18 U.S.C. 1964 (c), 2520. 42-525-75-31 1 SECTION 4102. CIVIL ACTION AGAINST AN EAVESDROPPING OFFENDER This section authorizes a civil damage suit for a person whose private oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of section 1521. Such action may be brought in a district court of the United States against any person who intercepts, discloses, uses, or procures another person to intercept, disclose, or use such a communication. An injured person may recover actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $1,000 or $100 per day for each day of violation, whichever is higher. In addition, such person is entitled to punitive damages and reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs. A defendant who has relied in good faith on a court order or legislative authorization has a complete defense to any action brought under this section or under any other law. SUBCHAPTER B.-ACTIONS FOR COMPENSATION OF VICTIMS OF CRIME (Sections 4111-4115) Although there is no Federal statute concerning compensation of victims of Federal offenses, Federal legislation to compensate victims of crime has passed the Senate in both the 92d and 93d Congresses, largely through the efforts and interests of Senator Mike Mansfield. The latest passage by the Senate of crime victim compensation legislation occurred on April 3, 1973, with the passage of S. 800, 93d Cong.. 1st Sess., by a vote of 93 to 1.1 That bill, in turn, incorporates as title I the provisions of S. 300, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., introduced by Senators Mansfield and Mondale, which had passed the Senate on March 29, 1973.2 Subchapter B contains the basic concept set forth in S. 300 and S. 800, that the Federal Government should provide a means of financial assistance to victims of Federal crimes which involve bodily injury or death and which causes financial stress. While retaining this basic concept, however, the Committee has reconsidered some of the details of the application and administration of the bill, and amended the original bill as a result of this reconsideration. There are two major changes: first, rather than having claims considered by a Board created in the Department of Justice, subchapter B provides that claims are to be brought as civil actions in the United States district courts; second, the Committee has made the subchapter applicable to victims of any offense described in chapter 16 (Offenses Against the Person) for which there is Federal jurisdiction rather than limiting jurisdiction to offenses committed within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction, the District of Columbia, and the Indian country.3 1119 Cong. Rec. S 6557 (daily ed.). |