The article first reviews the nature and structure of RICO, followed by a discussion of the historical context of the present debate about the meaning of 'pattern.' It then focuses on the aftermath of S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co. (Sedima), in which the U.S. Supreme Court (1985) suggested that RICO's extraordinary breadth stems from the judiciary's failure to interpret the pattern element meaningfully and not simply from statutory design. Justice White's majority opinion advanced the suggestion that the two racketeering acts within 10 years specified by RICO as a 'pattern' have a relationship to one another and pose the threat of continuing activity. The article criticizes the multiple-scheme test, advanced by the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which holds that a single criminal scheme fails to satisfy the pattern element regardless of the number of predicates involved. The article also considers the organized crime-oriented pattern limitation proposed by Amici in H.J. Inc. It concludes with the proposal that 'pattern' be defined as 'two or more predicates that are related either to each other or to the enterprise and constitute a series of acts or otherwise pose a threat of continuity.' 199 footnotes.