WPCL Qn=ȥQp1ם_nb.*Z- Cvu9 CҤA 3>jApʸѫ :2: K@gWYG}m偆jçԝֿX@ryJPyώZwq ͈ k&օxSu˭~R3P6qnxC˚V ;<,prZPDkӻY:#1E8jG>7Bko;w%vm\'!㎲R*;l29//$>%cauć)q-*SFӐ6kw0 D8R[j)Fjˊb }h̃_n7J(T.VCbfddyy;chDsnyD5gmA>*Ʊ ]Bgă_qc#j %+ 0 D1 0(u U: 0 N UN N UF U>5 ^ s w 4   E f a m  N N 0 ^ U6' 0] U>qU*U>UBbYa#e 0UY 0 B 0 0 0w 0T! 0." 0# 0C# 0$ 0$ 0% 0& 0f' 01( 0( 0) 0@~* 0* 0+ 0c, 01- 0- 0. 0/ 0K0 001 0<81 0t1 0>22 0vp2 0`2 0`F3 0`3 0`4 0`f4 084 04 025 06 0:6 0Y87 0_7 0 7 0j8 0d: B*; D/< D+A< 0l< D/=|> 0A 06iB 0B 0:C 0^C 0<?D~{DLGEJHP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0X(#$  0  ($<6X9`("Courier NewTT(d:2$ !    =3Xdd=    0  vr Z6Times New Roman RegularQ 9Z+.Courier New Regular<\( 9Z+&Courier Regular *-s 2{)- K3|xTABLE AU  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<6X9`(Courier New<ll@:QuickFormat1X7XXXX7XX!X7cb  X7XXXX7XX!X7cb  \  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial9Z&Courier Regular<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- - _   =3Xdd=    1    RICOistheRacketeerInfluencedandCorruptOrganizations  Act,18U.S.C.19611968(2000).Primarilydesignedasa x criminalstatute,see_Selima_,_SPRL_Ԁv._Imex_ԀCo.,473U.S.478,498 @ (1985),RICOalsoprovidescivilremediesincludingtrebledamages X andattorneysfeestoanyoneinjuredinhisbusinessorproperty   byaprohibitedact.18_U.S.C_Ԁ1964(c).  $  =3Xdd=    2    _TheMassachusettsPrevailingWageStatuteprovidesthat  localitywagesbepaidaccordingtoaformula.MassGen.Lawsch. x 149,27H(supp.1999).Thestatutealsopermitsemployeestosue @ intheeventofaviolationandrecovertrebledamagesand X attorneysfees.Id.  $  =3Xdd=    3    _See_Chisolm_v._TranSouth_ԀFinancialCorp.,95F.3d331,337  (4thCir.1996);_Pelletier_v._Zweifel_,921F.2d1465,1499(11th x Cir.1991);CountyofSuffolkv.LongIslandLightingCo.,907F.2d @ 1295,1311(2dCir.1990);Brandenburgv.Seidel,859F.2d1179, X 1188n.10(4thCir.1988);_Blount_ԀFinancialServices,Inc.v.   WalterE.HellerandCo.,819F.2d151,152(6thCir.1987).But  see_Tabas_v._Tabas_,47F.3d1280,1294n.18(3rdCir.1995); `  Proctor&GambleCo.v._Amway_ԀCorp.,242F.3d539,564(5thCir. ( x 2001).  $  =3Xdd=    4    _Whethercriminalfraudatcommonlawrequiredreliancevaried  withtheparticularformoffraud.See2_LaFave_Ԁ&Scott, x SubstantiveCriminalLaw8.68.7 (1986)(discussingrequirements @ forvariousformsofcommonlawcriminalfraud).Thecrimeof 0 falsepretensesmightwellbeconsideredthe"classical"criminal H fraudatcommonlaw,see,e.g.,WilliamJ._Stuntz_,ThePathological  PoliticsofCriminalLaw,100Mich.L.Rev.505,547&n.161   (2001),andthatcrimecontainsareliancerequirement,2_LaFave_Ԁ& P  Scott,supra,(c).*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5   d*A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/K<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7U(X7  ?%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7V(X7&  d dT)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7X(X7  ?%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7V(X7T)2dxd r $  =3Xdd=    5    _TheSenatebill,whichwasthebasisforthestatute,  includednocivilliabilityprovisionand,ifthishadremained x true,thedispositionofmostprosecutorstofocusonseriouscrime @ wouldhaveavoidedtheproblemsnowpresented.ButtheHouseadded X thecivilliabilityprovisionwithoutanyfurtherprecautions,   possiblywithoutrealizingthedegreetowhichcivillitigantshave  differentincentivesfromprosecutors.Seegenerally,1_Arthur_ԀF. `  Matthews,etal.,CivilRicoLitigation,2.0607(2ded.1992).0KS.SampleK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   t $  =3Xdd=    6    _TheCourtbaseditsconceptionofrelatednessonthe  definitionprovidedintheDangerousSpecialOffenderSentencing x Act.18U.S.C.3575etseq.See_ H.J._ ԀInc.,492U.S.at240 @ ("[_ C]riminal_ Ԁconductformsapattern[andisthusrelated]ifit X embracescriminalactsthathavethesameorsimilarpurposes,   results,participants,victims,ormethodsofcommission,or  otherwiseareinterrelatedbydistinguishingcharacteristicsand `  arenotisolatedevents.")(quoting3575(e)). B $  =3Xdd=    7    _Plaintiffsseektobroadentherangeofpertinentconductby  pointingto_Loiselle_'suseofasecondcompanytopaythereduced x wages,Butevenassumingtheuseofthesecondcompanywas @ improper,thereisnodirectconnectionbetweenthatcontrivance X andthemisconductatissueinthiscase.  $  =3Xdd=    8    _Allofthefraudulentactivitytookplacewithrespectto  19951996contract.PriortoJune1,1995,thedistrictcourt x foundthat_Loiselle_Ԁhadnotcommittedanyfraudulentacts.138F. @ Supp.2d.at9293._Loiselle_Ԁdidnotobtainanewcontractafter X June1,1995,andwasreplacedasthecontractorbyMarch1997. !  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !XXXXhXX     UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsh  FortheFirstCircuit   XiX   A') ` dE< ` A    X3XX XiNo.011538 K  No.011570  c No.012325  +  @SYSTEMSMANAGEMENT,INC.;VICTOR_LABOY_;JUAN_AYALA_; k  @ JUANORTEGA;FORGETMENOTSERVICES,INC.; 3  @l l MARTIN_RESTREPO_;_CESTLIO_Ԁ_RODAS_; K  @ JOSEMIGUELCRUZ;LUCIO_ARDON_,   @ Plaintiffs,Appellees/CrossAppellants, S  @tt)@@tt)v. 3 @"KENNETH_LOISELLE_, s @| | Defendant,Appellant/CrossAppellee. S A') ` dE<` A  @` ` APPEALSFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT j @0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS J @ [Hon.WilliamG.Young,U.S.DistrictJudge]  A') ` dE<` A j  @'Before A"   @@((Boudin,ChiefJudge,  $ SelyaandLipez,CircuitJudges. "a& A') ` dE<#` A #(     MatthewT._Oliverio_withwhomChristineM.Curleywason x$* brieffordefendant. @% +   GabrielO._Dumont_,Jr.withwhom_Dumont_,MorrisandBurke &X!, wasonbriefforplaintiffsJoseMiguelCruz,Lucio_Ardon_Ԁand & "- SystemsManagement,Inc. '".   󀀀 `(#/ *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  ()x$0()x$  SI)$1 P@37508P@SSeptember10,2002 T*%3  RHC+l&4" P@37508 P@ R()$5  (* !  ,,(6? _  83XXdd8*,X` XX*    ` BOUDIN,ChiefJudge.Inthiscase,thedistrictcourt  awardeddamagesandattorneysfeesundertheRICOstatuteagainst @ KennethLoiselle,soleownerandheadofAidMaintenanceCo.,Inc.   ("AidMaintenance").! #  1      ׀Thedamagesrepresentedunderpaymentsof `  wagesduetotwoemployees.Loisellenowappealsfromthe  @ judgment;acompetitorofthecompany,SystemsManagement,Inc.,    crossappealsfromthedismissalofitsownRICOclaimagainst `  Loiselle.    ` Therawfactsareundisputed.In1968Loisellefounded 0  AidMaintenance,whichprovidesjanitorialservicesprimarilyin  RhodeIsland.InOctober1994,thecompanywonacontractto P providecleaningservicesatMassachusettsBayCommunityCollege 0 ("thecollege"),aunitoftheMassachusettsStateCollegeSystem p withcampusesinWellesleyandFramingham.Neitherthebidding P invitationfromthecollegenorthecontractmentionedthatthe  contractorshadtopaynolessthanspecialminimumwagessetunder  p aMassachusettsstatutethatgovernedwagesforthecleaningof    publicbuildings."@ #  2       @"  ` InJanuary1995,Local254oftheServiceEmployees   InternationalUnionbegantocomplaintothecollegeaboutAid @ Maintenance,whichwasnotunionized.Initially,Local254asked   thatthecontractberebidbecauseitomitted,contrarytostate `  law,astipulationthatthestatutoryprevailingwageswouldbe  @ paid.InMay1995,thecollegesolicitednewbids.Inthe    meantime,Loiselle(byawrittencontractamendmentdatedFebruary `  1,1995),agreedtopaythestatutoryprevailingwages.Therate   wasthen$9.20perhourinWellesleyand$8.60inFraminghambut 0  thecollegeinitiallytoldLoisellethatthelowerFraminghamrate  couldbepaidforworkonbothcampusesbecausethecollege P businessofficewasinFramingham. 0  ` Accordingtothedistrictcourtslaterfindingsat p trial,atthestartoftheamendmentperiodLoiselleintendedto P paytheprevailingwages,hopingtomakeupthedifferencethrough  efficiencies.However,thehopedforcostsavingswerenot  p realizedand,aspartoftherebiddingprocess,Loisellelearned   thatthehigher$9.20wageratherthanthelower$8.60onewould @" havetobepaidinregardtotheWellesleycampus.Inconsequence,  $ fromJune1,1995,onward,Loiselleknowinglyuseddevicesto `"& underpaysomeofhisworkersatthecollege. #@(  ` Inparticular,Loisellepaidwagesbelowtherequired % * leveltosomecleanersassignedtoextracollegeprojectsorto '`", thosewhofilledinforabsentregularemployees.Inaddition, (#. afterlearningofthehigherwagesrequiredattheWellesley 0*%0 campus,Loisellebeganreportingandpayinghisregularworkersat +'2 Wellesleynominallyattheproperperhourratebutonlyfor5.75  hoursasessioneventhoughtheycontinuedtoworkfor6hours.On @ June29,1995,AidMaintenancewasawardedtherebidcontractand   continuedtoprovideserviceandtounderpayworkers,principally `  attheWellesleycampus.  @  ` Local254continuedtocomplainthatunderpaymentswere    occurringand,inJune1996,thecollegeagainrebidthecontract. `  AidMaintenanceagainsubmittedthelowestbid,followedbya   unionizedcompanySystemsManagementwhichlaterbecamea 0  plaintiffinthiscase.Thecollegedeferredthebidawardwhile  theunderpaymentchargesagainstAidMaintenancewereinvestigated P bythestate.InJanuary1997,thecollegeaskedfornewbidson 0 thegroundthattheJune1996bidswerestale.AidMaintenance p declinedtobidandthecontractwaswonbyaunionizedcompany P calledAM/PM,whichtookoveronMarch1,1997.   ` OnApril7,1999,thepresentRICOactionwasbrought  p againstLoisellebyindividualemployeesclaimingtorepresenta   classofunderpaidworkers.Thepredicatecriminaloffenses @" allegedtotriggerliabilityunderRICOwereactsofmailfraudby  $ Loiselle,primarilyfurnishingfalseinformationtothecollegeto `"& theeffectthattheprevailingwageswerebeingpaid.Alsonamed #@( asaplaintiffwasSystemsManagement,thedisappointedbidderon % * theJune1995contract.ItclaimedthatabsentLoisellesfalse '`", statementsofcompliancewiththeprevailingwagestatute,Systems (#.  Managementwouldhavewonthecontract. 0*%0  ` Thereafter,thedistrictcourtrejectedtherequestfor   classstatusandpareddownthenumberofworkerswithpotentially @ validclaims.SystemsManagementv.Loiselle,138F.Supp.2d78,   81(D.Mass.2001).InJune2000,thecourtheldasixdaybench `  trialontheRICOclaimsoffiveworkersandSystemsManagement.  @ AtthecloseofplaintiffsevidencethecourtdismissedSystems    Management'sclaim,sayingthatitcouldnotshowthat"butfor" `  theviolations,itwouldhavebeenthesuccessfulbidder.Id.at   90. 0   ` OnMarch19,2001,thecourtissueditsprincipal  decision.SystemsManagementv.Loiselle,138F.Supp.2d78(D. P Mass.2001).ItfoundthatfromJune1,1995,onward,Loisellehad 0 committedactsoffraudbymisrepresentingtothecollegethathis p companywaspayingworkersthestatutoryprevailingwage;that P documentscontainingsuchmisrepresentationshadbeensentthrough  themails;andthattheseactsofmailfraudconstituted"apattern  p ofracketeeringactivity"withinthemeaningofRICO,id.at94.   ThecourtalsofoundthatRICOsotherconditionsforcivil @" liabilityhadbeensatisfied.  $  ` Thecourtthenruledthattwooftheworkerplaintiffs `"& hadintotalsufferedunderpaymentsintheamountof$339.52asa #@( resultofthefraudand,underthemultipledamagesprovision, % * awardedthem$1,018.56;thereafterattorney'sfeesof$184,231.75 '`", wereawarded.Incidenttoitsliabilitydetermination,thecourt (#.  rejectedLoisellesargumentthatcivilliabilityformailfraud 0*%0 underRICOrequireddetrimentalreliancebytheinjuredpersons.  Id.at95.Crossappealsfollowed. @   ` OnLoisellesappeal,heurgestwocolorablegroundsas   thebasisforreversalofthejudgmentagainsthim:thatan `  injuredplaintiff,seekingtorecoverunderRICOforfraud,must  @ demonstraterelianceonthefraudulentstatements(whichthe    plaintiffsherecannotdo)andthatRICOs"patternof `  racketeering"requirementhasnotbeensatisfied.Loisellealso   attackstheawardofattorney'sfeesagainsthimbutthisclaimis 0  mootedbyourdecisiononliability.   ` Webeginwiththeissueofreliance.TheRICOstatute P itselfsaysnothingaboutrelianceasarequirementeitherfor 0 civilliabilityorforproofofdamages.Civildamages,trebled p andincludingattorneysfees,areprovidedto"anypersoninjured P inhisbusinessorpropertybyaviolationofsection1962."18  U.S.C.1964(c).Section1962(c)makesitunlawful"forany  p personemployedbyorassociatedwithanyenterpriseengagedin,or   theactivitiesofwhichaffect,interstateorforeigncommerce,to @" conductorparticipate,directlyorindirectly,intheconductof  $ suchenterprisesaffairsthroughapatternofracketeering `"& activity...."18U.S.C.1962(c). #@(  ` Onappeal,Loiselleconcedesthatheisapersonwiththe % * requiredrelationshiptoanenterprisenamely,hiscleaning '`", businesscarriedonthroughAidMaintenanceandanothercompany (#. andthattheinterstatecommercerequirementismet.Thecritical 0*%0 disputeconcernsthephrase:patternofracketeeringactivity." +'2 "Racketeeringactivity"meansanyactviolatingoneofmany  specifiedcriminalstatutes,includingthefederalmailfraud @ statute,18U.S.C.1341.See18U.S.C.1961(1).A"patternof   racketeeringactivity""requiresatleasttwoactsofracketeering `  activity"occurringwithintenyearsofeachother.Id.1961(5).  @  ` Loiselledoesnotdenythatmorethanoneofhismailings    violatedthefederalmailfraudstatute.Thatstatutecondemns `  interaliaobtainingmoneybyfalserepresentations.18U.S.C.   1341(2000).Here,thecollegecontinueditscleaningcontract, 0  andpaidLoisellescompanyforitsservices,basedonhisinvoices  andexplicitrepresentationsthatfalselyindicatedthatLoiselle P wascomplyingwiththeprevailingwagestatute.Accordingly,the 0 requirementthattherebe"atleasttwoactsofracketeering" p (knowninthejargonas"predicateacts")issatisfied. P  ` Arguably,thisfraudwasthe"butfor"causeofinjuryto  theworkers.Loiselleiscontenttoassumethat,butforhisfalse  p representations,thecollegewouldhaveinsistedoncompliancewith   theprevailingwagelaws,socertainworkersofhiswouldhavebeen @" paidforatleastsomeoftheirworkataslightlyhigherrate.  $ But,saysLoiselle,andthisishisfirstargumentonappeal,the `"& essenceofcivilfraudisrelianceondeception,andthereisno #@( proofherethatLoiselleevermadefalsestatementstohisworkers % * orthattheyreliedonhisfalsestatementstothecollege. '`",  ` Itistruethatatcommonlawacivilactionforfraud (#. ordinarilyrequiresproofthatthedefraudedplaintiffreliedupon 0*%0 thedeception,andsomecourtshaveimportedthisrequirementinto +'2 RICOactionswherethepredicateactscomprisemailorwirefraud.# #  3      ׀  ButRICObasesitsownbrandofcivilliabilitysimplyonthe @ commissionofspecifiedcriminalactshere,criminalfraudso   longastheycomprisea"patternofracketeeringactivity";and `  criminalfraudunderthefederalstatutedoesnotrequire  @ "reliance"byanyone:itisenoughthatthedefendantsoughtto    deceive,whetherornothesucceeded.SeeNederv.UnitedStates, `  527U.S.1,24(1999)("Thecommon-lawrequirement[]of   'justifiablereliance'[has]noplaceinthefederalfraud 0  statutes.").$ #  4      ׀   ` Perhapsthereissomesurfaceincongruityinallowinga P civilRICOplaintifftorecoverforfraudulentactseventhoughthe 0 sameplaintiffcouldnot(forlackofreliance)recoverforfraud p atcommonlaw.ButCongressstructureditscivilremedytoallow P recoveryforharmcausedbydefinedcriminalacts,including  violationofsection1341;and,asnoted,thefederalmailfraud  statutedoesnotrequirereliance.Thus,underaliteralreading @ ofRICOthepresumptivechoiceininterpretationnothingmore   thanthecriminalviolationandresultingharmisrequired. `   ` Thisisnotaconclusiveargument;commonlaw(andother)  @ conceptscanoftenbeimportedtofleshoutafederalstatute.    Indeed,weassumeherethatCongressintendedtorequirenotonly `  "butfor"butalso"proximatecause"tolinkthecriminalactwith   theharmtotheplaintiff,eventhoughthestatutesaysnothing 0  specificonthispoint.Butproximatecauselargelyaproxyfor  foreseeabilityisnotonlyageneralconditionofcivilliability P atcommonlawbutisalmostessentialtoshapeanddelimita 0 rationalremedy:otherwisethechainofcausationcouldbe p endless. P  ` Bycontrast,relianceisaspecializedconditionthat  happenstohavegrownupwithcommonlawfraud. Relianceis  p doubtlessthemostobviouswayinwhichfraudcancauseharm,but   itisnottheonlyway:Loiselledoesnotdenythatareasonably @" predictableconsequenceofhismailingswas,bydeceivingthe  $ college,toenablehimtocontinuetounderpayhisworkers. `"& ThereisnogoodreasonheretodepartfromRICOsliterallanguage #@( byimportingareliancerequirementintoRICO. % *  ` ThisbringsustoLoisellessecondclaimonappeal, '`", whichpresentsaproblemfarmoredifficultthanthereliance (#. issue.Fromitsphrasing(e.g.,racketeering,enterprise,unlawful 0*%0 debtcollection),aswellaslegislativehistory,weknowthat +'2 CongresshadorganizedcrimeinmindasitsmainRICOtarget.But  Congressdidnotinitstermslimitthestatutetoorganizedcrime, @ adoptinginsteadits"pattern"concept.Y #  5      ׀Anddespiteearlylower   courtcasesurginganarrowconstruction,theSupremeCourthasnow `  twiceflatlyrejectedsuchalimitation,stressinginsteadthe  @ flexibilityandreachofthestatute.SeeSedima,S.P.R.L.v.    ImrexCo.,473U.S.479(1985);H.J.Inc.v.NorthwesternBell `  Tel.Co.,492U.S.229(1989).    ` TakingRICOslanguageliterally,itcouldapplywherever 0  anenterprise(whichmaywellbealegitimatebusiness)engagesin  twosimilarcriminalactswithintenyearsofoneanother;theterm P "pattern"inothercontextsmeanslittlemorethanasuccessionof 0 similaroridenticalacts.Cf.Fed.R.Evid.404(b).Butthe p SupremeCourthasrecoiledattheideaofafederalcivilremedy, P withtrebledamagesandattorneysfees,foreverypairofsimilar  actswithintenyearsofeachotherthatmighttechnically  p constituteacrime(e.g.,isolatedactsof"puffing"byasalesman)   butoftenofakindthatwouldneverbepursuedcriminallybya @" competentprosecutor,letalonethroughacriminalRICO  $  prosecution. `"&  ` Inlimitingthepatternconcept,theSupremeCourtsays   firstthat,tocompriseapattern,thetwoormorepredicateacts @ mustbe"related,"thecriteriaforrelatednessbeingvague,` #  6      ׀H.J.   Inc.,492U.S.at240,but,inaddition,theactsmustconstitute `  orimplicateacontinuingthreatofcriminalbehavior.Id.at242.  @ Asanypairofsimilarcriminalactscouldbesodescribed,seeid.    at253(Scalia,J.,concurring),theCourtwasdoubtlessconcerned `  withmattersofdegree(e.g.,harm,duration).Butacompletelist   ofcriteria,andcertainlyanypreciseformulaastothedegreeof 0  threat,remainelusive.   ` Still,thecaselawprovidesafewusefulguidelineson P thepatternrequirement,andoneisdirectlyinpointinthiscase: 0 RICOisnotaimedatasinglenarrowcriminalepisode,"evenif p thatsingleepisodeinvolvesbehaviorthatamountstoseveral P crimes(forexample,severalunlawfulmailings).ApparelArt  Int'l.,Inc.v.Jacobson967F.2d720,723(1stCir.1992)(Breyer,  p C.J.);seealsoFujisawaPharmaceuticalCo.,Ltd.v.Kapoor,115   F.3d1332,1338(7thCir.1997)(Posner,C.J.)(notingthatif @" successivefrauds"wereinstallmentsinthesaleof[a]company,  $ therequirementofapatternwouldprobablynothavebeensatisfied `"& becausetherealitywouldhavebeenthattherewasonlyasingle #@( fraud").Asingle"scheme"maybereachedbyRICO,seeH.J.Inc.,  492U.S.at24041,butonlyifitisreasonablybroadandfar @ reaching.    ` Inourcase,Loiselle'sfraudulentefforttomaintainhis `  contractwiththecollege,bycomparativelytrivialchiseling,is  @ noworsethantheeffortsoftheprimecontractorinApparelArt    Int'l,Inc.tosecureandmaintainasingle,albeitlarge($96 `  million),DefenseDepartmentcontract.Althoughtodoso,the   contractorcommittednumerouscriminalacts(bribes,false 0  statements)somemoreseriousthananythinginthiscasethen  ChiefJudgeBreyersaidthattheseeffortswerealladdressedto P onecontractanddidnotcompriseorthreaten"thekindof 0 'continued'criminalactivityatwhichtheRICOstatutewasaimed." p 967F.2dat724.Othercasesaretothesameeffect.Seeid. P  ` Here,thedistrictcourtsaidthat"Loiselle'songoing  businessproceduresdocumentaclearpatternofracketeering  p activity,andonethatposedarealthreatofcontinuing   indefinitelywitheachsuccessfulcontractbid."138F.Supp.2d @" at94.IfLoisellehadconcreteplanstobidoncontractsonother  $ jobsandtocarrythemoutthroughactsofmailfraud,the `"& "continuingthreat"labelwouldbesupported,andthecasewould #@( fitwithinwhattheSupremeCourthasviewedasan"openended" % *  patternofracketeeringsufficientunderRICO.SeeH.J.Inc.,492 '`", U.S.at24243.Butneitherthedistrictcourtnortheplaintiffs  havepointedtoanysuchevidenceofcontinuingthreat.a #  7      ׀ @   ` Rather,Loiselletookontheoriginalcontractwithout   warningastotheprevailingwagerequirement.Whenapprised,he `  firstsoughttoabandonthecontractandthenchosetocontinueit  @ asamended;bydoingthesamejobinfewerhours,Loisellehopedto    meettheprevailingwagerequirement.Then,inJune1995,afterhe `  wonanewcontracttocontinueprovidingservices,hiseffortsat   economyfailedandheslidintoactsofdeliberatedishonestyto 0  maintainthiscontract,offeredanew(latermooted)bidpartway  throughandthenrefusedtobidagain.Theresemblanceofthis P episodetothelargerandmoreaggravatedschemeheldinadequateX3XX X3X3XXX3cb     guled X3XXX3 X3XX X3cb     0 foraRICOviolationinApparelArtInt'l,Inc.controlsthis p case.bx #  8       P  ` Thismightbeadifferentcaseiftheprevailingwage  statutewereoneofthoselistedinRICO;inthatevent,the  p numerousindividualunderpaymentsthemselveswouldhavebeen   separatepredicateactsdirectedatamultitudeofdifferent @" workers.Cf.H.J.Inc.,492U.S.at24243(consideringa  $ protectionracketwithmultiplevictims).Butitisnoaccident `"& thattheviolationsofstatelawthatcanbepredicateactsunder  RICOareofamoreseriouscharacter.See18U.S.C.1961(1) @ (e.g.,murder,robbery,extortion).And,ofcourse,thestate   statuteatissueherealreadyprovidesfortrebledamagesand `  attorneysfees.  @  ` Ourdecisionthattherewasnoviolationmootsthe    attorneysfeesissueraisedbyLoiselle.Bythesametoken,it `  requiresthatwedenythecrossappealbySystemsManagement   challengingthelowercourt'sdismissalofitsclaimoncausation 0  grounds.Thejudgmentofthedistrictcourtisreversedandthe  matterremandedfordismissalofthecomplaint.Eachsidewill P bearitsowncostsontheseappeals. 0  ` Itissoordered.