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.
(Note: I do not know if this probe is about more than one city. If it's only about Portland, my argument does not hold.)
> Company seemingly undergoes systemic effort to break such laws in cities across state lines
> Fed gets involved to investigate possibility of racketeering
Not seeing the problem here...?
Nope. Let the cities enforce their own laws.
Sounds like they don't know yet.
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
It might also fit into the federal wire fraud statute (which would also potentially get it into RICO territory.)
Fair point. Personally I still think this is overreach but I can follow the legal footing on that.
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.
And frankly, that's fucking hilarious.
When was this proven? So far, those are nothing but allegations in a civil suit.
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.
use of the internet in general being one of them. "but that means the feds could..." yes, yes it does