U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Massage Parlor Problem and RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Civil Remedies (From Techniques in the Investigation and Prosecution of Organized Crime, Volume Three, 1980 - See NCJ-93571)

NCJ Number
93580
Author(s)
R E Rohde
Date Published
1980
Length
23 pages
Annotation
The civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) offer an approach that could be used effectively against massage parlors, enterprises that are in fact houses of prostitution.
Abstract
The substantial increase in the number of massage parlors in the 1970's has contributed to the deterioration of downtown business districts and has had an adverse impact on the suburban and residential areas. Conventional law enforcement methods have been ineffective in reducing the number of massage parlors. Police often find it difficult to gather enough evidence to obtain convictions for prostitution and related offenses. The parlors have become adept at either circumventing or complying with local regulations, thus thwarting efforts by municipalities to zone or license massage parlors out of existence. The RICO civil remedies of injunctions as well as treble damages provide several advantages over zoning and licensing as a means of controlling massage parlors. The threat of triple damages presents an economic disincentive. In addition, a triple damage recovery might well offset at least part of the cost of the investigation and litigation. Landlords and other businesses serving massage parlors may also be liable for triple damages as coconspirators. RICO also provides equitable relief. It gives Federal courts the power to enjoin violations of RICO offenses. It also would seem that district courts have this power in connection with actions brought by persons under Section 1964(c). Lack of awareness of the statute is the probable reason that no civil RICO actions have been brought to date. Seventy footnotes are provided.