FEDERALCRIMINAL DEFENSE

Deportation Defense * Immigration Court Representation * Bond Hearings * Appeals

Federal Criminal Defense Attorney | New York & Connecticut
When the federal government targets you, it brings resources no individual defendant can match alone. Federal prosecutors — Assistant United States Attorneys — are career specialists who dedicate their professional lives to building and winning cases in the same courtrooms where your freedom will be decided. Behind them stand the full investigative power of the FBI, the DEA, the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, the Secret Service, Homeland Security Investigations, and dozens of other federal agencies. Federal cases frequently involve years of pre-indictment investigation before a single charge is filed. By the time you are arrested or served with an indictment, the government has often already built what it believes is an airtight case. The federal conviction rate consistently exceeds 90% — not because the government is always right, but because defendants who face the federal system without elite-level legal representation rarely survive it. The consequences of a federal conviction are categorical and unforgiving. There is no parole in the federal system. Mandatory minimum sentences are imposed by statute, not by a judge's discretion — and they can run for decades. Federal Sentencing Guidelines create ranges that judges are required to calculate and seriously consider. A federal criminal conviction carries collateral consequences that follow a person for a lifetime: loss of civil rights, deportation for non-citizens, loss of professional licenses, and permanent reputational damage. Pre-indictment intervention and aggressive defense strategy are not luxuries — they are necessities. Smith & Company exists to provide both.

Federal Court Is Different From State Court
Federal prosecutors are Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSAs) who handle narrow categories of cases with singular focus. An AUSA in the SDNY's Narcotics Unit has prosecuted dozens of drug trafficking cases. An AUSA in the Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit has handled some of the most sophisticated white-collar prosecutions in American history. These are not generalist attorneys — they are specialists backed by the investigative resources of federal law enforcement agencies including the FBI, the DEA, the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, and Homeland Security Investigations. Facing this level of expertise requires defense counsel with equivalent depth of experience in federal court practice. Before a federal charge is filed, a grand jury of 23 citizens convenes in secret to determine whether probable cause exists to indict. Prosecutors present only their evidence — there is no defense, no cross-examination, no judge moderating the presentation. Grand jury targets, subjects, and witnesses have different rights and exposure levels, and navigating this phase correctly is critical. A "target" is someone the grand jury is investigating with a view toward indictment. A "subject" is someone whose conduct falls within the scope of the investigation. A "witness" simply has relevant information — but that status can change quickly. Understanding where your client stands in a grand jury investigation, and acting swiftly to protect their rights, is work that must begin immediately. Mandatory minimum sentences under federal statutes fundamentally change the nature of criminal defense. Unlike state court, where a judge often has wide discretion to tailor a sentence to the individual, federal mandatory minimums strip that discretion away. A conviction for certain drug trafficking offenses triggers a mandatory minimum of 5, 10, or even 20 years in federal prison — regardless of the defendant's background, family circumstances, or the judge's personal view of what is fair. The existence of these mandatory minimums changes the strategic calculus of every federal case — from the decision of whether to fight at trial versus negotiate a plea, to whether to seek "safety valve" relief or cooperation credit. Every decision must be made with full knowledge of the mandatory minimum exposure. The United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) govern federal sentencing even when mandatory minimums do not apply. The Guidelines calculate a recommended sentencing range based on two variables: the offense level (determined by the nature of the crime and specific offense characteristics, such as drug quantity, loss amount, or use of a weapon) and the criminal history category (I through VI, determined by prior convictions). While the Supreme Court's Booker decision made the Guidelines advisory rather than mandatory, they remain enormously influential — judges must calculate the range, explain any departure from it, and a sentence within the range is presumptively reasonable on appeal. Fighting to reduce the offense level through objections to the Presentence Report, pursuing downward departures, and arguing for a below-guidelines variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) are all critical components of federal defense strategy.

Anchor 2

Cancellation of Removal

SERVING NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY CONNECTICUT AND MASSACHUSSETTS

Page 6 of 14

RICO DEFENSE

URL: /criminal-defense/federal-criminal-defense/rico-charges/

RICO DEFENSE ATTORNEY | FEDERAL RACKETEERING CHARGES | NEW YORK & CONNECTICUT

A RICO indictment is designed to devastate. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act was originally enacted to dismantle organized crime families — and prosecutors have used it with increasingly broad application to charge entire organizations, from street gangs to corporate executives, sweeping everyone from leadership to peripheral members into a single, sprawling indictment. The charging strategy is intentional: the sheer size of a RICO case — the number of defendants, the number of counts, the volume of evidence — creates an atmosphere of overwhelming criminality that can pressure defendants into plea agreements they would otherwise never accept. The penalties reinforce this pressure. RICO convictions carry up to 20 years per count and mandatory forfeiture of everything connected to the "enterprise" — bank accounts, real estate, business interests, vehicles, and more.

Being named in a RICO indictment is one of the most serious legal positions any person can find themselves in. You are not just facing individual criminal charges — you are being characterized as part of an ongoing criminal organization, with all of the reputational, financial, and legal consequences that designation carries. RICO defense requires an attorney who has been in these battles: someone who understands the legal architecture of a RICO prosecution, who knows how to challenge the elements of the statute, and who has the trial experience to dismantle the government's narrative in front of a federal jury. That is the representation Smith & Company provides.

WHAT IS RICO?

To obtain a RICO conviction, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

An enterprise: An association of individuals or a legal entity — which can be a legitimate organization like a corporation, a labor union, or a government agency, or an illegitimate association-in-fact like a drug crew or gang — that has an ongoing existence separate from the racketeering activity itself.
Interstate or foreign commerce connection: The enterprise's activities must affect interstate or foreign commerce — a broad requirement that is rarely a serious contested issue, but that must be established.
A pattern of racketeering activity: The defendant must have committed at least two "predicate acts" of racketeering within a 10-year period. The predicate acts must be related to each other and to the enterprise, and they must reflect a threat of continued criminal activity — not just isolated incidents.
The defendant's connection to the enterprise through those acts: The defendant must have conducted or participated in the conduct of the enterprise's affairs through the pattern of racketeering activity — not merely been associated with the enterprise or committed crimes that happen to benefit it.

Common RICO Predicate Acts include: murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, drug trafficking, wire fraud, mail fraud, bank fraud, securities fraud, obstruction of justice, tampering with a witness, and money laundering.

RICO PENALTIES

A RICO conviction carries up to 20 years in federal prison per count — and RICO indictments routinely charge multiple counts, compounding the sentencing exposure. In addition to imprisonment, RICO mandates forfeiture of all interest in the enterprise and all proceeds of the racketeering activity — which means the government can seize businesses, real estate, bank accounts, and virtually any asset connected to the alleged enterprise. Beyond the criminal case, RICO's civil provision (18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)) permits private plaintiffs to sue RICO defendants for treble damages — three times their actual damages — plus attorneys' fees, creating enormous civil financial exposure on top of the criminal case.

WHY RICO CASES REQUIRE A SPECIALIST

RICO prosecutions generate discovery of a scope that dwarfs ordinary criminal cases. Wiretaps — often spanning months or years — produce recordings of thousands of conversations. Physical surveillance generates volumes of photographs, location data, and observation logs. Cooperating witnesses, who have agreed to testify against their former associates in exchange for sentencing benefits, provide detailed insider accounts that require thorough investigation and aggressive cross-examination. The sheer volume of information in a RICO case means that defense attorneys who have not handled these cases before are at a profound structural disadvantage — they simply cannot absorb and effectively deploy the material in the time a case allows.

Multi-defendant RICO cases raise the critical question of how co-defendants coordinate their defense without inadvertently harming each other. Joint defense agreements — formal arrangements among co-defendants' attorneys to share information and strategy under the protection of a common interest privilege — are often essential in RICO cases, but they must be structured carefully. The interests of co-defendants are not always aligned: some may seek to cooperate, others to go to trial, and still others to plead guilty to specific counts while contesting others. Managing these dynamics, protecting our client's individual interests, and preserving strategic flexibility requires experience with exactly these situations.

The government's central narrative in a RICO case — that our client was a knowing, active participant in an ongoing criminal enterprise — is a construction that must be dismantled element by element. Prosecutors use the sprawling nature of RICO to paint everyone associated with the enterprise with the same brush, attributing the crimes of leadership to peripheral members and the crimes of associates to each other. Smith & Company focuses the jury's attention on the specific evidence (or lack of evidence) connecting our client — not the enterprise in general, not co-defendants — to the charged predicate acts. What did our client actually do? What did they know? What can the government actually prove, beyond the rhetoric of the RICO indictment?

DEFENSE STRATEGIES

Challenging the "enterprise" element: Was there really a structured, ongoing organization with an existence separate from the racketeering activity itself? Many alleged enterprises are nothing more than loose associations of individuals who committed separate crimes — not an "enterprise" in the RICO sense.
Challenging the "pattern" of racketeering: Two isolated acts years apart, without a meaningful relationship to each other or a threat of continued activity, do not constitute a "pattern." We challenge the relatedness and continuity of the alleged predicate acts.
Severing defendants: In multi-defendant RICO cases, trying all defendants together often prejudices those with minor roles. We move to sever our client from co-defendants where the disparity in alleged culpability would unfairly contaminate the jury's assessment of the evidence against our client specifically.
Attacking predicate acts individually: Each predicate act charged under RICO must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We challenge each one — suppression motions, evidentiary challenges, witness credibility attacks — on its own merits, because eliminating predicates dismantles the "pattern."
Forfeiture challenges: We contest the government's forfeiture claims vigorously — challenging the nexus between seized assets and the enterprise, asserting third-party ownership rights, and invoking the Excessive Fines Clause to limit disproportionate forfeitures.

RICO indictments require federal trial experience and total commitment. Call Attorney Eon Smith immediately — 24/7 — for a confidential consultation.