I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know. It just seems to me that if you use infrastructure that crosses state borders, e.g. a telephone or a computer network, to facilitate a crime committed in a state the Federal government has at least some reason to bring a criminal case. I suspect it'd be a law passed under the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution.
Sure, but what federal law was broken? I wasn't aware that the federal government enforces local city regulations just because money is moving between states.
I mean, if the feds really wanted to get in to it, Uber is probably guilty of money laundering.
Their service was illegal under local law, Uber moved the money from their illegal activity in to the banking system and across state lines and a slew of other things that would likely trigger the very broad money laundering laws. Interstate transfer of proceeds from a criminal activity is almost certainly an activity the feds can look into.
I'm guessing the feds can also "assist" the local jurisdictions in the case that the local criminals are an interstate organization that has been committing a slew of crimes across the nation.
Because the federal government has jurisdiction over many things that cross state lines. Even if you personally never cross a state line, if you're coordinating people in multiple states to break laws, and sending information to them about what to do and how, there's a good chance you're on the wrong side of some federal laws.
"The nature of any potential federal criminal violation, and the likelihood of anyone being charged, is unclear. The investigation is still in its early stages, the sources said."
Any organization that is suspected of committing one of a list of crimes enumerated in that article, and engages in activity across state lines, falls under federal jurisdiction. In this case, I'm guessing the charge is obstruction of justice. But I'm not a lawyer, and they could be using something other than RICO to press this case
Point taken. I still think it's absurd to have a federal investigation over some city's taxi regulations being evaded, but at least I can follow the potential legal logic. Thanks for the info.
If any of the false information presented to local regulators feeds into reports those local officials file with the feds (such as for funding or other purposes), yes. Didn't​ we just have the discussion about how lying to the feds, even indirectly, is a crime?
It might also fit into the federal wire fraud statute (which would also potentially get it into RICO territory.)
How is it an overreach to define finding who is a LEO and feeding them false information to deceive them and waste their time as obstruction of justice?
Because protectionist taxi regulations enacted and enforced by local officials are a local issue. Just because the DOJ can shoehorn a legal argument together to assert jurisdiction doesn't mean it isn't yet another overreach by the already bloated bureaucracy known as the United States government.
The whole point of RICO is to allow the feds to intervene when the criminal organization is too large and powerful for local governments to be able to effectively prosecute them. This is exactly what RICO was designed for.
It's not out of scope. Uber is a corrupt organization.
Here's to hoping that one of Travis Kalanick's numerous criminal actions (such as his decision to steal Google's self-driving tech) comes home to roost. There's now a material chance that Ubers investors (and many employees) will get zeroed out due to their reckless, willful, criminal actions.
Do you work for a taxi association? See how that pointless allegation swings both ways?
If you knew anything about civil litigation, you'd know that what is alleged in lawsuit filings is utterly pointless drivel as far as trying to use it to substantiate a point in a debate. Lawsuit allegations don't have to be factually true, which is why I asked where the allegation has actually been proven.