Hubbry Logo
Protection RacketProtection RacketMain
Open search
Protection Racket
Community hub
Protection Racket
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Protection Racket
Protection Racket
Protection Racket
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Protection Racket
SireGraustark
GrandsireRibot
DamProtectora
DamsireProloga
SexStallion
Foaled22 February 1978[1]
CountryUnited States
ColourBay
BreederEdward A Seltzer & Alvin Wagner
OwnerEdward A Seltzer
Serge Fradkoff
TrainerJeremy Hindley
Olivier Douieb
Gary Kempler
Record18: 5-4-2
Major wins
Ebor Handicap (1981)
Doncaster Cup (1981)
Irish St Leger (1981)
Awards
Timeform rating 84 (1980), 122 (1981), 117 (1982)

Protection Racket (22 February 1978 – after 1988) was an American-bred Thoroughbred racehorse and sire. He failed to win in three starts as a two-year-old in 1980 but made relentless progress over extended distances in the following year, taking two minor races before winning the Ebor Handicap, Doncaster Cup and Irish St Leger on his last three starts. He remained in training for two more seasons, racing over shorter distances in France and the United States but never won again. He made no impact as a breeding stallion.

Background

[edit]

Protection Racket was a "strong, rangy"[2] bay horse with no white markings bred in Kentucky by Edward A Seltzer & Alvin Wagner. He initially raced in Seltzer's colours and was sent to Europe where he was trained by Jeremy Hindley at his Clarehaven Stables in Newmarket.[3]

His sire Graustark had a brief but promising racing career before becoming a very successful breeding stallion whose progeny included Prove Out, Key To The Mint, Avatar and Jim French. Protection Racket's dam Protectora was a top-class racemare in Chile before moving to the United States where she won the Nettie Handicap in 1974. She came from a relatively obscure branch of Thoroughbred family 10 which had produced few major winners in Europe since Petrarch.[4]

Racing career

[edit]

1980: two-year-old season

[edit]

After finishing unplaced on his debut over seven furlongs Protection Racket started favourite for the Houghton Stakes at Newmarket Racecourse over the same distance and came home fifth of the fourteen runners behind Sunley Builds. Later that month at the same track he was moved up in distance for a minor race over one mile and finished third behind Video Tape. In their annual Racehorses of 1980 the independent Timeform organisation commented that he was somewhat lacking in pace but looked likely to stay longer distances.[2]

1981: three-year-old season

[edit]

As a three-year-old Protection Racket finished second and third in his first two races and then won a maiden race over fourteen furlongs (one and three quarter miles) at Newmarket in May. The colt was then moved up in class and distance for the Queen's Vase over two miles at Royal Ascot and finished second, two and a half lengths behind the Irish-trained Ore. He then won a minor handicap over fourteen furlongs at Yarmouth Racecourse later that month, after which a majority share in the colt was sold to Serge Fradkoff. There was an immediate disagreement between the new owner and the trainer: Hindley believed that the horse's future lay over extreme distances (two miles plus) while Fradkoff wanted to race him over shorter trips. After a break of six weeks he returned at York Racecourse in August for the Ebor Handicap in which he was ridden by Mark Birch and carried a weight of 113 pounds against older and more experienced opponents. Starting at odds of 15/2[5] he overhauled the long-time leader Shaftesbury a furlong out and held off the late challenge of Another Sam to win by one and a half lengths.[6]

In September Protection Racket bypassed the St Leger Stakes to avoid a clash with Shergar and instead took on older horses in the Doncaster Cup over two and a quarter miles at the same meeting. His task was made considerably easier by the late withdrawal of Ardross and with John Lowe in the saddle he was made the 8/11 favourite[5] against three opponents including the top class hurdler Heighlin (Triumph Hurdle) and the Chester Cup winner Donegal Prince. Protection Racket came home a length and a half ahead of Heighlin in a time of 3:52.7 which broke the course record set in 1949 by Alycidon. On 10 October Brian Taylor took the ride when the colt was sent to the Curragh to contest the Irish St Leger and started 6/4 favourite. Taylor was the stable's preferred jockey but had been unable to ride the horse in his last two races as he had been unable to make the weight. Erins Isle and Ore appeared to be the best of his rivals while other four runners were Bedford, Sailor King, Ashpin and the filly Overplay. Protection Racket overtook the leader Bedford two furlongs out and never looked in any danger of defeat, winning easily by three lengths from Erin's Isle.[6]

In their rankings for 1981 Timeform gave Protecto Racket a rating of 122, nine pounds behind their best stayer Ardross and described him as "a splendidly tough and genuine staying colt and a great credit to his trainer".[6]

1982: four-year-old season

[edit]

In 1982 Protection Racket was removed from Hindley's stable and sent to France where he was trained by Olivier Douieb. He was campaigned over middle distances and failed to win in four starts. On his French debut in April he finished second to Gap of Dunloe in the Prix d'Hédouville over 2400 metres at Longchamp Racecourse and then finished sixth to Bikala in the Prix Ganay in the following month. He was equipped with blinkers when he returned to England for the Coronation Cup at Epsom Racecourse in June and finished unplaced behind Easter Sun. On his final appearance of the year at Deauville Racecourse in August he finished fourth in the Prix de Reux. He was reportedly returned to the United Kingdom at the end of the year but was then exported to race in North America.[7]

1983: five-year-old season

[edit]

In 1983 Protection Racket was campaigned in the United States where he was trained by Gary Kempler but made little impression in three starts. He finished second in a minor race at Belmont Park in July and was then off the track until November when he finished unplaced in the Knickerbocker Handicap at Aqueduct Racetrack and the Citation Handicap at Hollywood Park Racetrack.[8]

Stud record

[edit]

At the end of his racing career Protection Racket was retired to become a breeding stallion in the United States. He appears to have attracted very little interest and sired few foals.

Pedigree

[edit]
Pedigree of Protection Racket (USA), bay stallion, 1978[1]
Sire
Graustark (USA)
1963 		Ribot (GB)
1952 		Tenerani Bellini
Tofanella
Romanella El Greco
Barbara Burrini
Flower Bowl (USA)
1952 		Alibhai Hyperion
Teresina
Flower Bed Beau Pere
Boudoir
Dam
Protectora (CHI)
1969 		Prologo (CHI)
1962 		Paresa Pardal
Solesa
Despejada Jardiniere
Dispareja
Dauka (CHI)
1962 		Prince d'Orange Prince Chevalier
Isabelle Brand
Darika Forest Row
Far Horizon (Family: 10)[4]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Protection Racket

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A protection racket is an extortion scheme employed by groups, in which perpetrators demand regular payments from businesses, property owners, or individuals in exchange for "" against threats of violence, vandalism, arson, or other harm that the racketeers themselves often orchestrate or execute if payments are withheld. These operations function through implicit or explicit , leveraging the criminals' capacity for to sustain victim compliance, and typically involve systematic collection akin to a quasi-tax imposed by force rather than consent. Unlike legitimate arrangements, protection rackets lack enforceable contracts or recourse to , deriving authority solely from the credible threat of escalation. Historically rooted in southern Italian mafia traditions, where groups like Cosa Nostra imposed tribute on Sicilian landowners and merchants to avert sabotage of harvests or shipments, protection rackets proliferated globally through migration and urbanization, adapting to local economies such as dens, construction sites, and retail districts. In the United States, they became integral to early 20th-century , exemplified by Italian-American syndicates infiltrating labor unions for "labor ," where mobsters controlled hiring and operations via threats of strikes or violence. Such schemes generate illicit revenue streams while minimizing direct confrontation with state authorities, often blurring into other criminal enterprises like loan-sharking or enforcement. Legally prosecuted as or under statutes like the U.S. RICO Act, these rackets persist due to victims' reluctance to report—fearing retaliation—and the difficulty in proving the nexus between payments and threats without undercover operations or informants. Notable countermeasures include Italy's "Addio Pizzo" movement, where businesses collectively refuse demands, eroding racketeers' economic leverage through social norms and legal solidarity. Scholars distinguish criminal rackets from state-provided security by the latter's claim to legitimacy and monopoly on force, though parallels in coercive extraction highlight underlying dynamics of power and predation.

Definition and Fundamentals

Core Elements and Definition

A protection racket is a form of organized in which criminal actors demand regular payments from individuals, businesses, or property owners within a designated , ostensibly in exchange for shielding them from , property damage, or other disruptions that the criminals themselves often initiate or control. This scheme exploits the victims' vulnerability to credible threats, transforming fear into a while mimicking a legitimate service provision. Central to the racket's operation are several interlocking elements: territorial control, which allows the group to monopolize and deter rivals; intimidation tactics, including initial demonstrations of to establish compliance; and a structured akin to a compulsory , often scaled to the victim's economic capacity. The extortionists maintain plausibility by occasionally interceding against external threats or even intra-group rivals, though this "protection" primarily serves to perpetuate dependency rather than deliver genuine . Unlike sporadic , the racket thrives on predictability and repetition, embedding itself in the local economy to maximize long-term extraction. This model presupposes the criminals' capacity for organized violence, distinguishing it from individual predation, and often involves hierarchical structures to manage collections, disputes, and across the territory. Empirical analyses of such rackets, including those in mafia-dominated regions, reveal that victim compliance is sustained not only by but also by social norms of , where refusal signals broader risks to or associates. The inherent —where the protectors are the primary threat—underpins the racket's predatory essence, rendering any ancillary benefits incidental to the coercive core. A protection racket represents a subtype of wherein organized criminal groups systematically demand recurring payments from businesses or individuals ostensibly for safeguarding them against , , or other harms that the racketeers themselves often orchestrate or amplify. This distinguishes it from simple , which may involve isolated threats for one-time gains without the structured pretense of providing a service or establishing territorial monopoly. In contrast to , where is seized immediately through direct force or —such as from a victim—protection rackets defer the extraction of value, using menaces of prospective to compel sustained compliance and foster victim dependency on the criminals' "." yields instantaneous benefits without ongoing enforcement mechanisms, whereas rackets function as extralegal taxation systems, akin to coercive governance over economic activities in ungoverned or weakly policed domains. Blackmail diverges by leveraging specific, confidential information—such as personal secrets or compromising evidence—to extract concessions, rather than generalized threats of physical or property harm independent of private knowledge. rackets, by extension, do not require such leverage, relying instead on the credible demonstration of violent capacity to deter rivals or fabricate risks, thereby mimicking legitimate provision while predating on victims' of uncontrolled chaos. Usury, involving at exorbitant interest rates to ensnare borrowers in escalating , contrasts with protection rackets' direct imposition of fees untethered to loans or voluntary financial transactions; the latter enforces through absent any contractual facade of mutual obligation. Shakedowns, typically extortions targeting transient opportunities like one-off demands from vulnerable parties, lack the institutionalized repetition, victim roster management, and enforcement hierarchies that define racket operations as organized enterprises. Bribery entails ostensibly consensual exchanges where principals offer inducements for official actions or favors, whereas protection rackets invert this dynamic through non-voluntary exactions under duress, often blurring into "extortion under color of office" when corrupt public actors mimic racket tactics but exploit state authority rather than private muscle. Legally, these distinctions underpin frameworks like the U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which subsumes protection schemes under predicate extortion offenses while emphasizing pattern and enterprise elements absent in sporadic related crimes.

Historical Origins

Medieval and Early Modern Precursors

In medieval , amid fragmented political authority and frequent local , armed groups and opportunistic lords often demanded payments from communities and individuals in exchange for refraining from or mitigating harm, laying groundwork for later organized schemes. These arrangements typically involved threats of plunder, , or , with "protection" fees ensuring temporary from the same perpetrators. Historians note that such practices blurred lines between legitimate feudal obligations and predation, as weak royal enforcement allowed self-appointed enforcers to monopolize local . A documented instance occurred around 1150 near , , where the knight Giraud Berlai initially ravaged lands belonging to the monks of St Aubin abbey before proposing to shield them from further depredations—including those by his own associates—in return for annual tribute and rights over disputed territories. This episode, chronicled in monastic records, exemplifies how initial aggression transitioned into structured , with the protector leveraging ongoing threats to sustain revenue. In 14th-century , the Coterel gang, led by James Coterel—a gentleman with ties to —systematically extorted payments across and surrounding counties from 1328 to 1332. Operating as a network of up to several dozen armed retainers, they demanded specific sums, such as 100 shillings from Murimouth of in late 1331 and equivalent amounts from other merchants and clergy, under implicit threats of robbery, kidnapping, or murder; the 's activities included "rescous" (forcibly freeing prisoners for ) and targeted , often evading through clerical pardons and official complicity. Similar dynamics prevailed in the , where Raubritter (robber knights) in the 13th to 15th centuries exploited their feudal privileges to impose unauthorized tolls on rivers, roads, and trade routes, compelling merchants to pay for safe passage and immunity from raids they themselves orchestrated or tolerated. These low-ranking nobles, often in minor castles, preyed on commercial traffic during periods of imperial , such as 1250–1273, when central authority waned, turning fief-based rights into extortion networks. Political sociologist characterized these medieval patterns as analogous to , wherein aspiring rulers and local strongmen extracted resources by promising protection from damages they threatened or inflicted, a to early but rooted in coercive tribute systems akin to rackets. Into the early (c. –1800), such precursors evolved amid ongoing fragmentation; for instance, in Anglo-Scottish marches sustained raiding economies through blackmail-like "protections" until royal pacification in , while Italian condottieri captains occasionally shifted from service to territorial in city-states weakened by wars. Seigneurial lordship in late medieval and early modern contexts further institutionalized these traits, with some advocates arguing it functioned as a "protection racket" reliant on the latent threat of seigneurial reprisals to enforce dues and labor.

Emergence in Modern Organized Crime

The systematization of protection rackets within hierarchical criminal syndicates marked a pivotal development in modern , particularly through the Sicilian Mafia (Cosa Nostra) in the mid-19th century. Following Italy's unification in 1861, the Bourbon-era feudal structures dissolved, but the nascent Italian state's weak rural policing—exacerbated by resource shortages and local resistance—left landowners vulnerable to , , and land disputes. In this context, proto-mafiosi, often former leaseholders (gabellotti) managing large estates, positioned themselves as private enforcers, offering arbitration and security in exchange for fees that evolved into coercive known as pizzo. Empirical studies link Mafia emergence to specific economic incentives post-unification, such as land reforms under the 1860s Evans-Realis laws, which fragmented holdings and heightened the need for of high-value, theft-prone assets like groves in western Sicily's and provinces. Municipal-level data from 1860–1900 reveal higher activity in areas with intensive cultivation, where enforcement failed to deter opportunistic predation, allowing criminal groups to monopolize "" markets and extract systematic —typically 1–5% of business revenues—while occasionally providing genuine to build compliance. This racket funded syndicate expansion, including alliances with politicians for , distinguishing it from sporadic medieval by establishing enduring territorial control. The Sicilian model influenced global by the early 20th century, as emigrants carried these practices to urban immigrant enclaves in the United States and . In New York and by the 1890s–1910s, Italian-American gangs adapted rackets to target saloons, fruit vendors, and construction firms, demanding weekly payments under threats of sabotage or assault, often via anonymous "Black Hand" letters. Pre-Prohibition (before 1920), these operations remained localized but professionalized within ethnic syndicates, generating revenues that rivaled legitimate enterprises and laying groundwork for Prohibition-era empires, where extended to speakeasies amid heightened violence. Unlike feudal precursors, modern rackets emphasized bureaucratic collection networks and selective reciprocity—e.g., shielding payers from rival gangs—to sustain long-term viability in industrialized economies with partial state presence.

Operational Structure

Intimidation and Enforcement Tactics

Protection racket operators primarily enforce compliance through credible threats of violence or , exploiting the asymmetry between the victim's and the group's capacity for harm. These threats often begin implicitly, relying on the criminal organization's established for to deter resistance without overt action. Explicit escalates when initial overtures are ignored, involving direct verbal warnings, anonymous notes, or phone calls specifying consequences like business disruption or . Surveillance tactics, such as monitoring victims' routines or premises, further amplify psychological pressure by demonstrating the group's ability to strike undetected. To establish and maintain credibility, enforcers frequently resort to demonstrative against non-payers or holdouts, including of property, of vehicles or buildings, physical assaults on owners and employees, or shootings in gang-affected communities. Such acts not only punish the immediate target but also serve as public spectacles to reinforce the racket's monopoly, signaling to other potential victims the futility of refusal. In organized crime contexts, these enforcement measures are calibrated to minimize scrutiny while maximizing fear; for instance, low-level damage like smashed windows may precede more severe reprisals if payments lapse. of local officials or police complements these tactics by neutralizing official responses, allowing enforcers to operate with . Internal discipline within the racket ensures reliable enforcement, with —including beatings, , or execution—deployed against underperforming members who fail to collect dues or who challenge territorial claims. This hierarchical mirrors the external tactics applied to victims, underscoring the predatory logic where the group's own capacity for aggression underpins its "protective" claims. Empirical analyses of schemes indicate that sustained operations hinge on this dual use of , as sporadic or unfulfilled threats erode the racket's deterrent power and invite from rival groups.

Economic Model and Territorial Monopoly

Protection rackets generate through compulsory, recurring payments extracted from businesses and individuals within their operational domain, resembling a coercive levied on economic activity to fund the organization's apparatus. These payments, often calibrated to a of victims' turnover or fixed sums calibrated to business size, enable by deterring excessive predation that could provoke resistance, relocation, or state intervention; empirical models indicate optimal rates around 40% of small firms' operating profits in Sicilian contexts, declining for larger enterprises to preserve . In low-trust environments with weak legal institutions, such rackets position themselves as suppliers of private protection, commodifying security against external threats—including those they orchestrate—to sustain victim dependence and compliance. The economic viability hinges on minimizing operational costs relative to yields, achieved via asymmetric information and credible threats rather than constant violence, which would erode the territory's economic base; organizations thus invest in monitoring compliance and rival incursions while occasionally delivering verifiable safeguards, such as mediating disputes or shielding against competitors, to legitimize the scheme internally. This model parallels informal taxation under imperfect enforcement, where racketeers balance extraction levels to avoid collapsing the host , as over-exploitation prompts victims to underreport income, diversify suppliers, or exit the market altogether. Territorial monopoly forms the cornerstone of sustainability, as protection services exhibit natural monopoly characteristics: overlapping claims by multiple providers incite turf wars, escalating enforcement costs and disrupting revenue flows through unpredictable violence. Rackets enforce exclusivity via boundary demarcations and preemptive strikes against intruders, partitioning urban or regional spaces into non-competing zones—evident in Sicilian Mafia divisions into family-controlled mandamenti—to cartelize the market and allocate stable rents among affiliates. Such monopolization reduces inter-group conflict, enabling long-term extraction; econometric analyses of Mafia territories reveal that single-provider dominance correlates with lower violence incidence and higher persistence of racket operations compared to contested areas. Breaches, however, trigger escalatory cycles, underscoring the monopoly's fragility absent credible deterrence.

Provision of Protection

Instances of Genuine Security Services

In Sicily during the mid-19th century, mafiosi provided tangible protection services to agricultural enterprises, particularly safeguarding lemon and groves from and in regions distant from effective state policing. Landowners paid regular fees—often 1-2% of shipment values—for armed escorts and vigilant deterrence, which reduced losses from and ensured reliable transport to markets like or ; this demand persisted because the Mafia's local knowledge and retaliatory capacity offered superior enforcement compared to unreliable gendarmes. Mafiosi also mediated disputes, such as enforcing agreements or resolving inheritance claims over land, acting as arbitrators whose rulings were backed by credible threats of violence against non-compliers, thereby stabilizing economic exchanges in a low-trust environment lacking formal courts. Confessions from turn-of-the-century trials, including those of mafioso Bernardino Verro, corroborate that these services generated loyalty among payers, who viewed them as essential for business viability rather than mere . In post-Soviet Russia of the early 1990s, "brigades" supplied "krysha" (protection) to emerging private businesses, delivering genuine security against rampant predation amid the state's security vacuum following the USSR's dissolution. By 1994, approximately 60-70% of enterprises reported contracting such services, which included deploying guards to prevent break-ins, enforcing through intimidation of defaulters, and shielding firms from rival racketeers—reducing victimization rates for protected entities by up to 50% according to contemporaneous surveys. These groups professionalized into private security firms by the mid-1990s, providing contract and insurance-like coverage against or , with payers benefiting from the brigades' monopoly on local violence to preempt external threats; ethnographic accounts detail cases where non-payment led to verifiable harm, while compliance yielded sustained operational stability for clients in high-risk sectors like retail and .

Inherent Limitations and Predatory Nature

Protection rackets fundamentally operate through , extracting payments under implicit or explicit threats of harm from the racketeers themselves, rendering the "protection" a facade for rather than a genuine service. Victims are compelled to pay to avert or damage orchestrated or threatened by the group, creating a cycle of dependency without voluntary consent or legal enforceability, distinct from legitimate where premiums fund verifiable risk mitigation. In the Sicilian Mafia's operations, this predatory dynamic manifests as regressive , with small firms surrendering up to 40% of profits compared to just 2% for larger enterprises, exploiting informational asymmetries about firm productivity to target vulnerable actors disproportionately. Such structures prioritize short-term extraction over sustainable security, often escalating demands arbitrarily due to the absence of impartial . Inherent limitations arise from the reliance on violence for enforcement, fostering instability as racketeers must continually demonstrate credible threats to maintain compliance, which perpetuates turf wars and internal betrayals rather than delivering reliable deterrence. Empirical cases, such as Mexican avocado extortion rackets generating an estimated $2.2 billion in 2016 through kidnappings and murders of non-compliant farmers, illustrate how competition among groups undermines any monopoly on protection, leading to heightened violence and economic disruption. Victims face severe risks in resisting or reporting, including retaliation without recourse, while racketeers encounter inefficiencies like barriers to small business entry and poverty traps, as high fees stifle growth and innovation in affected regions. Unlike state systems, these arrangements lack scalability and legitimacy, collapsing under strengthened law enforcement or rival incursions, as higher public taxation and anti-corruption measures can eradicate racket presence by reducing opportunities for collusion.

Historical and Contemporary Examples

Sicilian Mafia and Early European Cases

The , also known as Cosa Nostra, arose in mid-19th-century following the in 1861, amid weak central authority and pervasive rural banditry that undermined property rights. Landowners and absentee estate managers (gabelloti) increasingly relied on private armed guards (campieri) to deter and enforce contracts in the absence of effective policing, but these protectors often imposed compulsory fees for their services, marking the inception of organized as a protection racket. By the 1860s and 1870s, this evolved into systematic demands for pizzo—regular payments framed as insurance against harm that the mafiosi themselves could orchestrate, targeting agricultural estates, citrus groves, and emerging industries like sulfur mining. The pizzo mechanism solidified Mafia control by creating a de facto territorial monopoly, where non-payment invited arson, crop destruction, or violence against family members, while compliance bought nominal deterrence of external rivals. Historical accounts from the late 19th century describe mafiosi negotiating "friendships" with victims, blending coercion with rituals of loyalty to legitimize the racket as mutual aid, though empirical patterns reveal it primarily enriched clans through regressive levies on small producers. This model expanded beyond rural Sicily into urban Palermo by the 1880s, infiltrating public works and trade guilds, where Mafia intermediaries skimmed percentages from contracts in exchange for labor peace or supplier access. In broader early European contexts, analogous rackets predated the Sicilian variant, as seen with the in the Kingdom of , where organized networks emerged by the amid feudal fragmentation and rivalries. Camorristi enforced "protection" on Neapolitan merchants, artisans, and ports through street-level , demanding for safeguarding against or in a region plagued by Spanish viceregal corruption and absent . These operations, often tied to and dens, mirrored tactics by posing as informal regulators in high-risk environments, extracting resources via credible threats rather than outright predation alone, and persisting into the despite Bourbon suppressions in the 1820s-1830s.

American and Global Organized Crime Syndicates

In the United States, Italian-American organized crime syndicates, particularly La Cosa Nostra (LCN), have historically relied on protection rackets as a core revenue stream, extorting payments from businesses, labor unions, and firms under the threat of violence or . By the early , groups like the New York Five Families—Gambino, Genovese, Lucchese, Bonanno, and —established territorial monopolies in cities such as New York and , demanding regular "tribute" from restaurants, garment manufacturers, and waste management operations to ostensibly shield them from rival gangs or internal disruptions often orchestrated by the syndicates themselves. For instance, in 2011, federal authorities charged 91 LCN members across multiple families with conspiracies involving long-standing of New York-area businesses, including threats of physical harm and economic ruin. More recently, in 2023, ten Gambino family associates were arrested for schemes that included battering a victim with a to enforce payments from a business. Similarly, Genovese family members pleaded guilty in 2024 to extorting a New York business through tactics conducted in backrooms. Globally, Japanese syndicates operate analogous rackets, known as mikajimeryō or protection fees, targeting bars, nightclubs, and construction sites, with demands often escalating amid inter-gang conflicts. In Tokyo's Kabukicho district, for example, groups have brazenly extorted pub operators, collecting payments over periods as long as five years through threats of or assaults, as documented in 2022 police investigations leading to arrests. Specialized affiliates, or sōkaiya, further extort corporations by threatening disruptive shareholder interventions unless paid off, a practice persisting despite anti-Yakuza ordinances since 2011. Russian networks in the post-Soviet era imposed krysha ("roof") rackets on nearly all private enterprises, providing nominal in exchange for fees equivalent to 10-30% of revenues, amid the collapse of state policing. These syndicates, evolving from prison-based vory v zakone codes, controlled markets in and St. Petersburg through violence, with remaining a foundational activity even as operations globalized. In , drug cartels such as the and New Generation have diversified into taxing legitimate sectors like avocado exports in , where growers pay "" fees—often 1,000−1,000-5,000 monthly per —to avoid kidnappings or crop destruction, a model intensifying since the 2008 escalation of cartel turf wars. Chinese Triads in , including the 14K and , enforce rackets on retail, entertainment venues, and vice industries, blending with territorial control, as seen in persistent demands on small businesses despite crackdowns post-1997 handover. These operations underscore the predatory essence of such syndicates, where "" frequently amplifies the very risks they claim to mitigate.

Recent Developments in Weak Governance Areas

In , the collapse of central authority following the 2021 assassination of President has enabled armed gangs to establish control over much of and key infrastructure, including ports and fuel depots, through systematic schemes resembling protection rackets. These groups, notably the Viv Ansanm coalition, demand regular payments from businesses, truckers, and markets in exchange for refraining from violence, generating millions in annual revenue alongside kidnappings for ransom. By mid-2025, such criminal enterprises had intensified, contributing to the displacement of over 700,000 residents and the shutdown of essential services amid a humanitarian catastrophe marked by risks and mass atrocities. In , the Islamist militant group al-Shabaab has sustained economic influence in and rural territories despite military offensives, enforcing a sophisticated network that targets businesses, firms, and operators for "" fees. A 2025 analysis documented al-Shabaab's collection of zakat-like taxes and transaction cuts, yielding substantial funding even in government-held areas where state enforcement remains inconsistent. This shadow economy persists amid weak federal governance, allowing the group to project quasi-state functions like while predating on compliant entities, with disruptions limited by and inadequate intelligence. Mexican drug cartels have expanded protection rackets in regions with eroded local governance, such as and parts of , imposing "derecho de piso" fees on , , and retail sectors, resulting in an estimated $1.3 billion annual economic drain by 2025. Extortion reports in nearly doubled in the first five months of 2025 compared to 2024, prompting business closures and prompting federal strategies like anonymous reporting hotlines, though cartel infiltration of undermines enforcement. In cartel-dominated zones, payments secure nominal security against rival threats or internal predation, but non-compliance invites , assassinations, or family abductions. In the , encompassing , , and , jihadist affiliates of and the exploit governance breakdowns post-2020 coups to levy on traders, farmers, and operations, framing demands as Islamic taxes to legitimize predation. These groups collected funds from gold artisanal sites and cross-border in 2023–2025, financing insurgencies amid state withdrawals that left vacuums filled by militia "protection" against banditry they often orchestrate. Such rackets thrive on minimal state presence, with 2025 reports indicating heightened reliance by isolated communities, though payments rarely yield sustained security and instead perpetuate cycles of violence and displacement.

State and Government Analogies

Theoretical Frameworks Like Tilly's Model

Charles Tilly, in his 1985 essay "War Making and State Making as Organized Crime," posited that the formation of modern European states paralleled the operations of protection rackets, where coercive actors extract resources in exchange for safeguarding subjects from threats that the actors themselves often generate or exploit. Tilly defined a protection racket as a system in which a powerholder produces both the danger—through predation, coercion, or organized violence—and the purported shield against it, compelling payments from those under threat. In this framework, early state-makers functioned similarly: rulers waged wars that created insecurity, then demanded tribute or taxes to fund defenses, thereby consolidating territorial control and bureaucratic extraction mechanisms. Central to Tilly's model is the interdependence of war-making, state-making, , and extraction, driven by competition among "wielders of " such as bandits, , and nascent monarchs. Successful actors eliminated rivals, achieved in , and legitimated their rackets through claims of , transforming raw into institutionalized . For instance, Tilly illustrated how 15th- and 16th-century European princes invested war proceeds in administrative apparatuses that enhanced extraction efficiency, mirroring how racketeers might organize to sustain long-term flows. This process, he argued, explains the coalescence of fragmented polities into capable of monopolizing legitimate within defined territories. Tilly's analogy extends to distinguishing "smooth" from state-like rackets: the former lacks territorial permanence and legitimacy, while the latter scales up through military success and , often blurring lines with "upright" . He emphasized that European involved no inherent moral distinction from ; rather, outcomes depended on power balances and , with war as the ultimate selector. Comparable frameworks, such as Mancur Olson's distinction between "roving bandits" (ephemeral predators) and "stationary bandits" (settled extractors who invest in goods like to maximize yields), reinforce this view by modeling rational incentives for racket-like stability in . These theories underscore causal mechanisms where coerced evolves into structured authority, though they assume subject indifference to providers, potentially overlooking resistance or alternative loyalties.

Empirical Evidence Differentiating States from Rackets

Areas under the dominance of groups, such as -controlled regions in , exhibit markedly inferior economic outcomes compared to those with robust state . A study analyzing municipal-level data from 1981 to 2011 found that presence reduces local GDP per capita by approximately 16%, attributable to heightened , , and deterrence of legitimate investment. This contrasts with state-led anti- operations, like those following the , which weakened criminal networks and correlated with subsequent economic recovery in affected areas, as measured by increased business registrations and reduced illicit activities. Security metrics further highlight disparities: homicide rates in territories controlled by protection rackets or cartels substantially exceed those in state-monopolized jurisdictions. In , municipalities dominated by drug trafficking organizations reported homicide rates up to 10 times the national average between 2007 and 2012, with impunity rates for violent crimes nearing 95%, reflecting the limited capacity of rackets to enforce order beyond self-interested predation. State interventions, such as intensified military deployments in Colombia's post-2000 era, reduced annual homicide rates from 70 per 100,000 in 1991 to around 25 per 100,000 by 2015, alongside dismantling major cartels and restoring judicial functions. Comparative analyses of failed states versus consolidated governments underscore states' superior provision of scalable protection. In Somalia during its 1991-2006 state collapse, clan-based militias and warlords operated de facto rackets, yielding homicide estimates exceeding 20 per 100,000 amid pervasive extortion, whereas post-2012 state reconstruction with international support lowered violence in government-held areas through unified policing. Stable democracies like Japan maintain homicide rates below 0.3 per 100,000 via institutionalized law enforcement, demonstrating how state legitimacy enables broad deterrence and dispute resolution, unlike rackets' localized, predatory equilibria that perpetuate cycles of retaliation. Institutional provides an additional empirical . Electoral mechanisms and judicial oversight in states allow for periodic , as evidenced by post-authoritarian reforms in , where infiltration declined after EU accession-driven rule-of-law enhancements, boosting foreign direct investment by 50-100% in affected countries from 2004-2014. Protection rackets lack such mechanisms, leading to internal instability; for example, clans experienced violent power shifts in the 1980s-1990s, exacerbating local insecurity without yielding net protective benefits. These patterns affirm states' capacity for sustained, impersonal security provision, grounded in coercive monopoly backed by popular consent, over rackets' extractive fragility.

Societal and Economic Impacts

Effects on Victims and Local Economies

Protection rackets impose a direct financial burden on victims, primarily small businesses and entrepreneurs, who must divert a significant portion of revenues to extortionists to avert threats of or sabotage. In , where the Mafia's pizzo operates systematically, small firms surrender approximately 40% of their operating profits on average, while larger enterprises face a lighter 2% rate due to better and favoring the extortionists. This regressive structure exacerbates vulnerability for low-margin operations, with average monthly payments estimated at around 600 euros per affected , often collected periodically alongside public holidays. Victims frequently pass these costs to consumers through elevated prices, further eroding their competitive edge and profitability. Beyond monetary extraction, victims endure psychological strain and operational constraints, as the persistent threat of retaliation—ranging from to physical harm—instills chronic fear and undermines autonomous . This coercive dynamic limits investments in expansion or , as owners prioritize compliance over growth to minimize risks, fostering a culture of that can evolve into . Empirical analysis of extortion reveals that affected firms experience not only profit losses but also distorted , with smaller entities particularly prone to stagnation or closure due to inability to absorb repeated demands. On local economies, protection rackets distort market incentives and amplify inefficiencies, deterring external and while perpetuating traps in high-crime areas. In Sicilian provinces dominated by organized , output contractions are estimated to be three times the direct amount collected, stemming from reduced business activity, higher transaction costs, and that favor entrenched or -linked operators. This leads to broader stagnation, as heightened suppresses capital inflows and labor productivity, with infiltration historically linked to Sicily's lagging GDP per capita compared to mainland —exacerbated by fear-driven underreporting and informal economic evasion. Ultimately, these rackets erode trust in formal institutions, channeling resources into illicit channels and hindering .

Broader Consequences for Rule of Law

Protection rackets erode the rule of law by supplanting state-enforced legal protections with private coercion, compelling victims to forgo formal judicial recourse due to threats of violence or institutional complicity. This substitution fosters a parallel governance structure where criminal entities dictate compliance through extortion rather than contractual or statutory obligations, diminishing public trust in impartial enforcement. In regions affected, reporting rates for extortion plummet as victims perceive law enforcement as ineffective or infiltrated, perpetuating impunity and weakening the predictability essential to legal systems. Institutional corruption accelerates this decay, as racketeers bribe or co-opt officials to evade prosecution, transforming public agencies into enablers of illicit activity. In Mexico, for instance, federal police entities like the Dirección Federal de Seguridad (DFS) and Procuraduría General de la República (PJF) operated protection rackets from the 1970s onward, extorting drug traffickers and contrabandists—such as stealing 4,000 luxury vehicles since 1975—and formalizing a "plaza system" that generated millions in payoffs, thereby institutionalizing graft and distorting state formation away from legal accountability. Similarly, in Nepal, organized crime syndicates engage in extortion while maintaining ties to political parties for protection, politicizing institutions like law enforcement and cultivating a culture of impunity that undermines civil service integrity and judicial independence. These dynamics create a feedback loop: diminished invites expanded , which in turn amplifies and violence, diverting resources from legitimate to security expenditures and eroding standards. Transnational organized crime, including rackets, generates vast illicit flows—estimated at $870 billion annually in 2009, equivalent to 1.5% of global GDP—fueling in elections and , while associated violence correlates strongly with elevated rates, further delegitimizing state authority. Over time, this can lead to , where criminal influence permeates policy-making, as seen in heightened insecurity from gang extortion turning urban areas into zones of de facto .

Prosecution and Anti-Racketeering Laws

In the United States, early federal efforts against , including rackets involving , emerged in the 1930s with the Anti- Act of 1934, which criminalized interference with commerce through threats or . This was supplemented by the of 1946, which prohibits affecting interstate commerce and has been applied to syndicates demanding payments for "." The landmark Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, enacted in 1970 as of the Control Act, provided a comprehensive framework for prosecuting enterprises engaged in patterns of activity, explicitly including and threats of central to rackets. RICO defines acts to encompass predicate offenses like under 18 U.S.C. § 1951, allowing prosecutors to target the entire criminal organization rather than isolated incidents, with penalties up to 20 years imprisonment per count, mandatory forfeiture of proceeds, and civil remedies for victims. Successful applications include the 1986 Commission Case, where RICO convicted leaders of New York's for schemes akin to rackets. In , where protection rackets (pizzo) have long been a staple, Article 416-bis of the Penal Code, introduced by the 1982 La Torre-Rognoni Act following assassinations of anti- judges, criminalizes association with mafia-type organizations that employ intimidation, subjugation, and to commit crimes including . This provision punishes mere membership with 3 to 6 years imprisonment, escalating for leaders or those promoting the association, and facilitates asset confiscation to dismantle economic bases of rackets. Prosecutors have used it extensively against Sicilian Cosa Nostra and other groups like 'Ndrangheta, with over 10,000 convictions by 2020 for associations involving protection . Complementary measures, such as the 1991 anti- laws, mandate reverse burden of proof for asset seizures linked to income, enhancing enforcement against hidden racket proceeds. Internationally, the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC), adopted in 2000 and ratified by over 190 states, obligates signatories to criminalize participation in organized criminal groups—defined as structured associations of three or more persons existing over time to commit serious crimes for profit, including extortion-based protection rackets—with penalties of at least four years imprisonment. UNTOC's Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms supports prosecutions by addressing arms used in racket enforcement, while promoting mutual legal assistance for cross-border cases. In the European Union, Directive 2017/1371 harmonizes minimum penalties for organized crime participation, incorporating racket-like extortion, though enforcement varies by member state reliance on national laws like Italy's 416-bis. These frameworks emphasize enterprise liability, mirroring RICO, to disrupt the coercive structures of protection rackets beyond territorial bounds.

Challenges in Enforcement and Corruption Risks

Enforcing laws against protection rackets, such as the U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act of 1970, requires prosecutors to establish a criminal enterprise, a of activity involving at least two related acts within a ten-year period, and participants' knowing involvement in the enterprise's affairs through such acts. This evidentiary threshold often proves challenging due to the clandestine nature of rackets, where payments are disguised as voluntary fees or "protection" services, complicating proof of and relatedness of predicate acts like threats or violence. Defendants frequently contest the continuity of criminal acts or their connection to an ongoing enterprise, leading to protracted litigation and occasional acquittals on technical grounds. Witness cooperation remains a persistent obstacle, as victims—typically owners or vulnerable individuals—fear retaliation, including physical harm or economic , which deters reporting and . In contexts, infiltration by undercover agents is resource-intensive and risky, while electronic surveillance under laws like Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 yields fragmented evidence insufficient for standalone convictions. Empirical analyses of RICO applications indicate that while the statute has facilitated over 25,000 federal and state indictments since 1970, many cases involving extortion-based rackets collapse due to evidentiary gaps or plea bargains that fail to dismantle underlying networks. Corruption risks exacerbate enforcement difficulties, as racketeers extend to public officials, offering to secure lax oversight or tip-offs about investigations. officers may engage in "noble cause" , such as or evidence tampering, rationalized as combating greater evils, but this erodes institutional integrity and allows rackets to persist. Historical precedents, such as Italy's anti-Mafia campaigns in the 1980s and 1990s, demonstrate how political with groups undermined prosecutions; magistrates like exposed ties between rings and politicians, yet systemic delayed reforms until the 1992 Tangentopoli scandals implicated over 5,000 officials in networks facilitating . In weaker contexts, manifests as "middle-world" actors—corrupt intermediaries—shielding racketeers from , as seen in Rome's case (2014), where public-private extortion schemes involved bid-rigging and protection demands protected by bribed officials. Risk assessments highlight that frontline police are particularly vulnerable to low-level in daily interactions, enabling racketeers to monitor enforcement efforts and evade detection, with studies estimating that up to 20% of officers in high-crime areas encounter such temptations annually. Mitigating these risks demands robust internal affairs mechanisms and whistleblower protections, though implementation varies, often leaving rackets resilient in corruptible systems.

Debates and Perspectives

Libertarian Critiques of State Equivalence

Libertarian theorists, drawing on historical analysis and economic reasoning, contend that the state's extraction of taxes for services mirrors the coercive structure of a protection racket, where payment is compelled under implicit or explicit threats of harm for non-compliance. , in his 1908 work The State, classified as deriving from "political means"— and expropriation—rather than voluntary exchange, positing that rulers sustain power by offering subjects "" against threats often generated by the state itself, akin to a racketeer's promise to shield victims from damages the racketeer might otherwise inflict. This framework influenced subsequent libertarians, who argue that the analogy exposes the state's lack of genuine , as individuals cannot without facing penalties such as asset or incarceration, unlike market-based contracts. Murray Rothbard extended this critique in The Anatomy of the State (1974), portraying the state as "a gang of thieves writ large—the most immoral, grasping and unscrupulous individuals in any society," which monopolizes force within a territory and justifies tribute (taxes) as payment for coerced "protection" that private entities could provide more efficiently through competition. Rothbard emphasized that historical evidence, such as the consolidation of feudal lords into centralized monarchies in Europe between the 9th and 15th centuries, reveals states evolving from localized extortion rackets into scaled operations, where warfare—often state-initiated—creates the very insecurities the state then "resolves" at taxpayer expense. He contrasted this with libertarian alternatives like private defense agencies, which, per empirical studies of historical mutual aid societies in 19th-century America, maintained accountability via customer choice and reputation, avoiding the state's systemic incentives for expansion and aggression. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, in Democracy: The God That Failed (), critiqued democratic states specifically as time-inconsistent protection rackets, where short-term political incentives lead to fiscal irresponsibility—evidenced by U.S. federal debt rising from $5.7 trillion in to over $34 trillion by 2023—undermining long-term security claims and redistributing resources to favored groups rather than providing impartial defense. Hoppe argued that the state's monopoly precludes market tests of efficacy, citing data from private arbitration in disputes, where resolution rates exceed 90% without , as proof that voluntary systems outperform state equivalents in reliability and cost. This perspective rejects equivalence between state and legitimate authority, asserting that true protection emerges from decentralized, consent-based , as modeled in medieval Iceland's stateless order (930–1262 CE), where homicide rates remained low through clan-based and restitution rather than punitive taxation. Critics within libertarian circles, such as in (1974), partially qualified the racket analogy by acknowledging that a minimal state could arise dominantly from voluntary protective associations without initial conquest, though he conceded that real-world states deviate through overreach, imposing non-consensual dominance. Nonetheless, anarcho-capitalist libertarians like David Friedman counter that even Nozick's "" process risks entrenching monopoly power, as game-theoretic models show dominant agencies suppressing competitors via network effects, mirroring racket consolidation but justified ideologically rather than empirically. Friedman's analysis of modern examples, including private expenditures in high-crime U.S. cities like (where firms handled over 40% of patrols by 2010), demonstrates that market incentives align protection with consumer demand, eroding the state's racket-like unaccountability. Overall, these critiques underscore that the state's equivalence to a racket lies in its coercive non-market provision, which empirical alternatives refute as neither necessary nor superior for societal order.

Rebuttals Emphasizing Causal Benefits of Legitimate Monopoly

A legitimate on violence, as conceptualized by , enables the provision of generalized security that extends beyond payers of tribute, thereby reducing societal violence through deterrence and impartial enforcement, unlike the selective and predatory nature of criminal rackets. Empirical analyses demonstrate that strengthening this monopoly causally lowers conflict intensity; for example, in , government campaigns to extend state control over illicit armed groups via aerial eradication of fields—serving as an exogenous shock to —resulted in a 4-7% reduction in rates per , alongside improved local collection and reduced paramilitary persistence in non-strategic areas. This contrasts with racket-dominated territories, where fragmented authority perpetuates cycles of inter-group violence without net security gains. Economically, such monopolies facilitate investment and growth by minimizing transaction costs associated with predation and uncertainty, outcomes unattainable under competing rackets that prioritize extraction over stability. Cross-regional evidence indicates that areas achieving exhibit higher economic activity proxies, such as increased night-time luminosity, reflecting expanded and development enabled by secure environments. In politically stable jurisdictions with robust monopolies, GDP growth correlates positively with institutional strength, as seen in Indian states where effective reduced volatility and spurred development rates exceeding 7% annually in the post-1990s period. Legitimacy further amplifies these benefits by eliciting voluntary compliance and resource pooling, allowing states to fund non-excludable public goods like roads and —absent in rackets, which lack mechanisms for broad reciprocity. acknowledged this distinction, describing states as "protection rackets with the advantage of legitimacy," which enables scale and endurance not seen in illicit operations prone to internal betrayal or external rivalry. Without such monopoly, fragmented violence providers engage in costly turf conflicts, elevating overall predation levels; state consolidation, by contrast, channels into institutionalized order, yielding long-term reductions in violence as evidenced by historical transitions from feudal fragmentation to centralized in .

References

  1. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/protection-racket
  2. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/bringing-the-state-back-in/war-making-and-state-making-as-organized-crime/7A7B3B6577A060D76224F54A4DD0DA4C
  3. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/27988/chapter/211691610
  4. https://www.getlegal.com/what-is-racketeering-meaning-examples-rico-charges/
  5. https://cadmus.eui.eu/entities/publication/7faa4562-9559-5b6b-be20-7f6efe6b05a6
  6. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/labor-racketeering-mafia-and-unions-crime-and-justice-review
  7. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1636&context=etd
  8. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4783&context=jclc
  9. https://www.birrellcriminaldefense.com/money-laundering/what-is-racketeering/
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6979701/
  11. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00323292221129756
  12. https://ocindex.net/crime/extortion_and_protection_racketeering
  13. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-09/study_on_extortion_racketeering_en.pdf
  14. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2018/3568085
  15. https://www.scamnet.wa.gov.au/scamnet/Scam_types-Threats__extortion.htm
  16. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1961
  17. https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v31/n08/alexander-murray/protection-rackets
  18. https://www.thecollector.com/real-robin-hoods-gangs-medieval-england/
  19. https://brewminate.com/raubritter-medieval-and-early-modern-european-robber-barons/
  20. https://www.jesusradicals.com/uploads/2/6/3/8/26388433/warmaking.pdf
  21. https://academic.oup.com/past/article-abstract/266/1/3/7721843
  22. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5214057_Land_Reform_the_Market_for_Protection_and_the_Origins_of_the_Sicilian_Mafia_Theory_and_Evidence
  23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147596723000501
  24. https://prohibition.themobmuseum.org/the-history/the-rise-of-organized-crime/the-mob-during-prohibition/
  25. https://www.history.com/articles/prohibition-organized-crime-al-capone
  26. https://www.incb.org/documents/Publications/AnnualReports/Thematic_chapters/English/AR_2010_E_Chapter_I.pdf
  27. https://unicri.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/UNICRI_Organized_Crime_and_Legal_Economy_report.pdf
  28. https://insightcrime.org/investigations/racket-gangs-violence-in-salvador/
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6954028/
  30. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674807426
  31. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%257CA66888956&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=0037783X&p=AONE&sw=w
  32. https://iris.cnr.it/retrieve/fdf3e357-3c0e-444d-b3e6-968a83d1fb51/prod_309253-doc_90142.pdf
  33. https://web.stanford.edu/group/Russia20/volumepdf/Volkov.pdf
  34. https://globalinitiative.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Extortion-handbook-WEB-1.pdf
  35. https://as.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/faculty/documents/NEWmafia.pdf
  36. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10611-025-10212-x
  37. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17440572.2015.1129815
  38. https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/ten-members-and-associates-gambino-crime-family-arrested-coordinated-us-italian
  39. https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/five-members-and-associates-genovese-crime-family-plead-guilty-various-felony-charges
  40. https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14715727
  41. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49071502
  42. https://www.americasquarterly.org/article/flows-of-guns-and-money-are-dooming-haiti/
  43. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2025/country-chapters/haiti
  44. https://www.globalr2p.org/countries/haiti/
  45. https://globalinitiative.net/analysis/disrupting-al-shabaabs-hold-on-mogadishus-economy/
  46. https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/analysis/2025/09/25/al-shabab-why-somalia-militants-winning-legitimacy
  47. https://fortune.com/2025/07/11/mexico-cartel-crime-extortion-protection-racket-how-big/
  48. https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2025-07-11/he-closed-his-store-after-years-of-threats-why-mexicos-extortion-problem-is-getting-worse
  49. https://www.visionofhumanity.org/mexicos-organised-criminal-landscape-2025/
  50. https://afghanistan.asia-news.com/en_GB/articles/cnmi_st/features/2025/05/29/feature-01
  51. https://afghanistan.asia-news.com/en_GB/articles/cnmi_st/features/2025/04/26/feature-01
  52. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2025/02/states-of-fragility-2025_c9080496/81982370-en.pdf
  53. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/does-war-make-states/war-and-state-formation/0688A7CD52EB1EB8C600818279277909
  54. https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Crime-statistics/International_Statistics_on_Crime_and_Justice.pdf
  55. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248955386_The_cost_of_protection_racket_in_Sicily
  56. https://gps.ucsd.edu/_files/faculty/gourevitch/gourevitch_cs_superti.pdf
  57. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272723001792
  58. https://nuitalian.org/2023/12/13/the-mafias-impact-on-sicilian-entrepreneurs-and-society-through-the-addio-pizzo-movement/
  59. https://www.unodc.org/toc/en/crimes/organized-crime.html
  60. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-impact-of-organized-crime-on-governance-a-case-study-of-nepal/
  61. https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-110000-organized-crime-and-racketeering
  62. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/racketeer_influenced_and_corrupt_organizations_act_%28rico%29
  63. https://www.history.com/articles/how-mafia-infiltrated-american-labor-unions
  64. https://www.fordhamilj.org/iljonline/bridging-a-gap-in-the-fight-against-italian-organized-crime-a-comparative-analysis-of-rico-and-416-bis
  65. https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/b8efae/pdf/
  66. https://www.transcrime.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/ProjectCEREU-ProjectReader_eng.pdf
  67. https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/organized-crime/intro/UNTOC.html
  68. https://sherloc.unodc.org/cld/en/education/tertiary/organized-crime/module-2/key-issues/criminal-organizations-and-enterprise-laws.html
  69. https://law.emory.edu/_includes/documents/sections/faculty-and-scholarship/articles/cloud/2000-Oraganized-Crime-RICO-and-the-European-Union.pdf
  70. https://leppardlaw.com/federal/white-collar/how-the-us-rico-act-targets-organized-crime-in-america/
  71. https://www.michaelrataj.com/blog/2024/08/challenging-the-pattern-of-racketeering-activity-in-rico-cases/
  72. https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/rico/
  73. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/11/5/69
  74. https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1674&context=ohlj
  75. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12117-023-09521-1
  76. https://rm.coe.int/risk-analysis-of-corruption-within-law-enforcement-eng/16807823da
  77. https://www.unodc.org/unodc/frontpage/2024/November/explainer_-how-corruption-facilitates-organized-crime.html
  78. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w15578/w15578.pdf
  79. https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/publications/The%20Monopoly%20of%20Violence-Evidence%20from%20Colombia.pdf
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9427090/
  81. https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/19sd/refs/Tilly1985.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.