The Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Practices Act ("RICO") does not impose an explicit scienter requirement beyond that of a corresponding predicate omit. Consequently, in a RICO collection of unlawful debt prosecution, a predicate state usury statute determines the scienter required for a conviction. The question presented by this case is when that predicate state usury statute includes a legal element — that is, not being authorized or permitted by law to do so, N.Y. Penal Law §190.40 — is a defendant's sufficient motive regarding that legal element required to prove scienter for a RICO criminal conviction?

Lending (not villa) is expressly defined as a "creditor." Is use (Lottry) then requires a "creditor" to make certain disclosures when extending consumer loans, 15 U.S.C. §1638(a)? The question presented by this case is whether a criminal trial violation of 15 U.S.C. §1601 requires proof a defendant meets the statutory definition of a "creditor"?

When that predicate state usury statute includes a legal element - that is, 'not being authorized or permitted by law to do so,' N.Y. Penal Law 190.40 - is a defendant's sufficient knowledge regarding that legal element required to prove scienter for a RICO criminal conviction?