Mailings occurring after receipt of the goods obtained by fraud are within
the mail-fraud statute if they `were designed to lull the victims into a false sense of security, postpone their ultimate complaint to the authorities, and therefore
make the apprehension of the defendant less likely than if no mailings had taken place.’ (quoting Maze, 414 U.S. at 403 ); United States v. Pacheco- Ortiz, 889 F.2d 301, 305 (1st Cir. 1989) (post- Schmuck). For the mailings to be considered in furtherance
of the scheme, the scheme’s completion or the prevention of its detection must have depended in some way on the mailings.”
1. Impact of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
There are some distinctive aspects to New Jersey claims. New Jersey has a powerful Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56: 8-1. If you are a plaintiff, make your life easier with a statute that has few requirements, rather than a demanding one.
2. Standard on Motions to Dismiss
Generally a plaintiff wants to be in state court, and New Jersey law requires far less under the Printing Mart standard than federal law under Iqbal. Consider pleading a state based cause of action in state court to avoid the rigors of responding to a motion to dismiss. Note client response can vary and many can be attracted to the lure of a federal case, without realizing the enhanced proof requirements.
Questions, feel free to call about co-counsel, brief assistance, or consultation on your RICO case.
In civil litigation, considering adding state RICO claims. In some states, these RICO statutes have more lenient proof requirements that the federal statute. Federal and state claims cab be combined.