Would anyone here with sufficient legal knowledge play devil's advocate that this ruling could help set a precedent that corporate entities engaging in criminal acts could have their assets frozen more easily?
That's already the case. The threat of this kind of asset freezing was used at least as far back as the Drexel Burnham Lambert investigation in the 80s.
"The threat of a RICO indictment unnerved many at Drexel. A RICO indictment would have required the firm to put up a performance bond of as much as $1 billion in lieu of having its assets frozen. This provision was put in the law because organized crime had a habit of absconding with the funds of indicted companies, and the writers of RICO wanted to make sure there was something to seize or forfeit in the event of a guilty verdict. Unfortunately, most of Drexel's capital was borrowed money, as is common with most Wall Street firms (in Drexel's case, 96 percent—by far the most of any firm). This debt would have to take second place to this performance bond. Additionally, if the bond ever had to be paid, Drexel's stockholders would have been all but wiped out. Due to this, banks will not extend credit to a firm under a RICO indictment.[5]
By this time, several Drexel executives—including Joseph—concluded that Drexel could not survive a RICO indictment and would have to seek a settlement with Giuliani."
I guess I need to read Roberts' minority opinion. My current assumption is that a ruling the other way (in conjunction with everyone's favorite Citizens United ruling) would significantly weaken RICO.
