Friend of our site

MMA Headlines


Josh Gross

MMA Fighting

MMA Torch

MMA Weekly

Sherdog (News)

Sherdog (Articles)


Liver Kick

Fightsport Asia

Caged In

MMA Junkie

MMA Mania

Bloody Elbow



MMA Ratings

Rating Fights

MMA Convert


Fight Medicine


MMA Frenzy


Kevin Iole

Yahoo MMA Blog

MMA Betting

Search this site

Latest Articles

News Corner

MMA Rising

Audio Corner


MMA Dude Bro

Sherdog Radio

The Fightworks Podcast

Eddie Goldman

Pro MMA Radio

MMA Torch

Video Corner

Fight Hub

The Fight Nerd

Special thanks to...

Link Rolodex

Site Index

To access our list of posting topics and archives, click here.

Friend of our site

Buy and sell MMA photos at MMA Prints

Site feedback

Fox Sports: "Zach Arnold's Fight Opinion site is one of the best spots on the Web for thought-provoking MMA pieces."

Site Meter

« | Home | »

If ABC & Golden Boy claim Al Haymon is violating the Ali & Sherman Acts, why not cite RICO?

By Zach Arnold | May 7, 2015

Print Friendly and PDF

You’ve read the Association of Boxing Commissions letter to US Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

You’ve read the various causes of actions listed in Golden Boy’s federal lawsuit against Al Haymon.

Both ABC & Golden Boy accuse Al Haymon & associates of violating the Muhammad Ali Act. ABC accuses Haymon of violating his fiduciary responsibility as a boxing manager to his various fighters because he also supposedly acts as a promoter through the PBC series. Golden Boy’s lawsuit alleges Haymon & company of violating the Sherman & Clayton Antitrust Acts. Both ABC & Golden Boy accuse Haymon and his business associates of conspiring in an illegal scheme with others in order to create a monopoly in the boxing industry by supposedly violating the Ali Act.

Which begs the following question: why didn’t ABC or Golden Boy, in their letter and legal complaints, bring up RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) as a cause of action if they’re alleging that Haymon & associates are supposedly involved in an illegal business/scheme?

By its legal definition, racketeering involves an organized group of individuals conspiring & engaging in an illegal business or scheme.

If ABC & Golden Boy have evidence that Al Haymon & associates are engaged in an conspiracy to commit an illegal business or scheme via violations of the Ali Act, why aren’t they citing the RICO statute as a potential cause of action?

To level charges publicly against Haymon that he is somehow violating the Ali, Sherman, & Clayton Acts, ABC & Golden Boy better have hard evidence to prove their case in a court of law. In civil court, only a preponderance of the evidence is needed to win. So why are the lawyers on behalf of ABC & Golden Boy confident enough to claim that Haymon is supposedly violating various federal acts via an illegal scheme but not confident enough to accuse Haymon & his business associates of racketeering?

18 U.S.C. Chapter 96 deals with RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations). In order to cite RICO as a cause of action, one must prove that the individuals being sued are involved in a criminal enterprise that has allegedly committed two or more specific violations within a 10 year time period. There is a list of various crimes that fall under the RICO statute, which provides both criminal & civil remedies.

Given the various legal claims made by both ABC & Golden Boy, there are two Code sections that stand out for hypothetical discussion:

18 U.S. Code § 1952 – Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises

18 U.S. Code § 1957 – Engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity

In order to satisfy one of the requirements of “unlawful activity” for 1952, section 1957 applies. As defined by Findlaw, 1957 states the following:

(a) Whoever, in any of the circumstances set forth in subsection (d), knowingly engages or attempts to engage in a monetary transaction in criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000 and is derived from specified unlawful activity, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

(1) the term “monetary transaction” means the deposit, withdrawal, transfer, or exchange, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, of funds or a monetary instrument (as defined in section 1956(c)(5) of this title) by, through, or to a financial institution (as defined in section 1956 of this title), including any transaction that would be a financial transaction under section 1956(c)(4)(B) of this title, but such term does not include any transaction necessary to preserve a person’s right to representation as guaranteed by the sixth amendment to the Constitution; (2) the term “criminally derived property” means any property constituting, or derived from, proceeds obtained from a criminal offense; and (3) the terms “specified unlawful activity” and “proceeds” shall have the meaning given those terms in section 1956 of this title.

Golden Boy and ABC both allege that Haymon & associates have made money illegally by supposedly violating the Ali Act.

18 U.S. Code § 1962 – Prohibited activities breaks down the racketeering issue in plain English. Take note of sections B & C.

ABC is asking the US Attorney General to launch a criminal investigation into Al Haymon’s business activities. Golden Boy is pursuing civil remedies. In regards to civil remedies available for RICO causes of actions, read 18 U.S. Code § 1964 – Civil remedies:

(a) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section 1962 of this chapter by issuing appropriate orders, including, but not limited to:

  • ordering any person to divest himself of any interest, direct or indirect, in any enterprise;
  • imposing reasonable restrictions on the future activities or investments of any person, including, but not limited to, prohibiting any person from engaging in the same type of endeavor as the enterprise engaged in, the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce;
  • or ordering dissolution or reorganization of any enterprise, making due provision for the rights of innocent persons.

(c) Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, except that no person may rely upon any conduct that would have been actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities to establish a violation of section 1962. The exception contained in the preceding sentence does not apply to an action against any person that is criminally convicted in connection with the fraud, in which case the statute of limitations shall start to run on the date on which the conviction becomes final.

(d) A final judgment or decree rendered in favor of the United States in any criminal proceeding brought by the United States under this chapter shall estop the defendant from denying the essential allegations of the criminal offense in any subsequent civil proceeding brought by the United States.

If both ABC & Golden Boy are going to accuse the Haymon Defendants of running an illegal business/scheme which allegedly involves violating the Muhammad Ali Act in order to create a monopoly in boxing, then why aren’t they citing RICO as a cause of action?

Topics: Boxing, Media, Zach Arnold | 1 Comment » | Permalink | Trackback |

One Response to “If ABC & Golden Boy claim Al Haymon is violating the Ali & Sherman Acts, why not cite RICO?”

  1. ot says:

    As to RICO, GBP has made deals with Haymon and other entities that would expose GBP to similar criminal investigation.


To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-spam image