Thanks to the flu, I am horribly behind in my reading. I actually did not know i had the flu until I caught myslef reading the same paragraph in an article four times and still not understanding what I was reading. So for a while, I am relying on The Indiana Daily Lawyer alerts.
Indiana RICO Act applies to foot soldiers:
"In Linda Keesling, Harold Lephart, et al. v. Frederick Beegle III, John Bucholtz, et al., No. 18S04-0704-CV-150, the high court accepted transfer to rule on whether liability under the Indiana RICO Act extends only to people who direct racketeering activity, the 'generals,' or whether it extends below the managerial or supervisory level to the 'foot soldiers.'"
The Supreme Court ruled that the Indiana RICO Act uses "significantly broader" language than the federal act, which states that it's unlawful for anyone employed by or associated with an enterprise to "conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt."
Under Indiana's act, a person can be charged if he or she "knowingly or intentionally conducts or otherwise participates in the activities of that enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity."
As a result of this difference in language, the Supreme Court overturned summary judgment in favor of defendants Dennis Baugher; Baugher's company, Florida Underwriting; and William Jones with respect to the Indiana RICO Act, finding Indiana's act imposes liability on both persons at or below a racketeering enterprise's level of manager or supervisor.
The plaintiffs are Indiana residents who purchased pay telephones and entered into service agreements to install, service, and maintain the phones. The plaintiffs were passive investors in the program that targeted investors across the country, relying upon the promoters of the deal to select locations, install, and service phones, as well as obtain all regulatory certifications.