When it's done using communication and information transfer across state borders there is at least a case to be made for that.

Hmm. But local taxi regulations are not federal law, so what's the underlying federal crime being committed?

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.

If money is moving from one state to another, then I would assume it's considered Interstate commerce, which is federal jurisdiction.

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.

RICO explicitly defines racketeering to include several kinds of state law violations

Electronic surveillance techniques could be one angle.

Good ol' wire fraud!

When it's done systematically throughout the nation, I'd say so.

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.

Yes, but for evading city taxi regulators?!?

Nationwide? Yes (at least arguably). At that point, it's a nationwide conspiracy.

(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.)

The mafia-like, protectionist taxi regulations should be considered the true conspiracy, IMHO.

The taxi cabs aren't all one company though. Most taxi cab companies operate in one city. Additionally, lobbying is not a federal crime.

Isn't that up to the cities?

> Cities make laws that are up to them

> 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...?

"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."

Sounds like they don't know yet.

Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corru...

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

How about obstruction of justice?

Some city? I think Uber willfully and flagrantly evades the taxi regulations of almost every single city that has them.

So they misled investigators throughout multiple cities across the United States. Therefore, it's a federal issue. This really isn't that hard to understand.

It seems to be when it's coordinated by single organization across state lines. That's what turns it from a series of totally unrelated crimes in different states into one nation-wide criminal operation.

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.)

RICO laws are pretty broad.

RICO covers fraud and obstruction of justice, both of which could theoretically apply to Grayball (or not, depending on the facts uncovered).

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.

It's not a local issue when a multinational organization is doing the same thing across an entire country. Then it's rightly a federal issue.

If you start with the assumption that the US federal government is bloated and overreaching as a principle, then no matter the facts, you'll still arrive at the conclusion that the US federal government is bloated and overreaching. Logic isn't really relevant.

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.

Which local governments have tried mounting a substantive case and failed?

I don't know... Maybe the local governments that were blocked from investigating by Greyball?

Then let them build a case against Uber for its use of Greyball. Why is federal involvement under RICO statutes necessary to do that?

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.

And frankly, that's fucking hilarious.

>such as his decision to steal Google's self-driving tech

When was this proven? So far, those are nothing but allegations in a civil suit.

Do you work for Uber or something? Because you seem awfully determined to be willfully dense about this issue.

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.

they have a lot of leeway in establishing jurisdiction

use of the internet in general being one of them. "but that means the feds could..." yes, yes it does