In the case of Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 1984, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a private party could sue for damages under RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) without needing to prove that a defendant had been previously convicted of racketeering or that harm was caused by 'racketeering activity'. The dispute arose when Belgian firm Sedima accused its American partner Imrex of fraudulent accounting practices amounting to millions in losses. Lower courts dismissed the claim on grounds that RICO required proof of criminal conviction before civil action could be taken. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision in a 7-2 vote stating there is no such requirement within RICO's language or legislative history and affirmed it as an avenue for civil litigation against alleged fraudsters even if they have not faced criminal charges.

The dissenting opinion in the Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc case argued that the majority's interpretation of RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) was overly broad and not consistent with Congressional intent when they enacted it. The dissenters believed that Congress intended for RICO to be used primarily against organized crime, rather than as a general fraud statute or a means of addressing business disputes like in this case. They also expressed concern about potential misuse of civil RICO provisions due to their expansive reading by the majority, which could lead to excessive litigation and potentially unjust outcomes for defendants who may face treble damages under these provisions even if their conduct does not resemble traditional racketeering activity.