Unlike the Exchange Act, there is nothing in the text of the RICO statute that even arguably evinces congressional intent to exclude civil RICO claims from the dictates of the Arbitration Act. This silence in the text is matched by silence in the statute's legislative history. The private treble-damages provision codified as 18 U.S.C. 1964(c) was added to the House version of the bill after the bill had been passed by the Senate, and it received only abbreviated discussion in either House. See Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 486 -488 (1985). There is no hint in these legislative debates that Congress intended for RICO treble-damages claims to be excluded from the ambit of the Arbitration Act. See Genesco, Inc. v. T. Kakiuchi & Co., Ltd., [482 U.S. 220, 239] 815 F.2d 840-851 (CA2 1987); Mayaja, Inc. v. Bodkin, 803 F.2d 157, 164 (CA5 1986).
Because RICO's text and legislative history fail to reveal any intent to override the provisions of the Arbitration Act, the McMahons must argue that there is an irreconcilable conflict between arbitration and RICO's underlying purposes. Our decision in Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985), however, already has addressed many of the grounds given by the McMahons to support this claim. In Mitsubishi, we held that nothing in the nature of the federal antitrust laws prohibits parties from agreeing to arbitrate antitrust claims arising out of international commercial transactions. Although the holding in Mitsubishi was limited to the international context, see id., at 629, much of its reasoning is equally applicable here. Thus, for example, the McMahons have argued that RICO claims are too complex to be subject to arbitration. We determined in Mitsubishi, however, that "potential complexity should not suffice to ward off arbitration." Id., at 633. Antitrust matters are every bit as complex as RICO claims, but we found that the "adaptability and access to expertise" characteristic of arbitration rebutted the view "that an arbitral tribunal could not properly handle an antitrust matter." Id., at 633-634.
Likewise, the McMahons contend that the "overlap" between RICO's civil and criminal provisions renders 1964(c) claims nonarbitrable. See Page v. Moseley, Hallgarten, Estabrook & Weeden, Inc., 806 F.2d 291, 299, n. 13 (CA1 1986) ("[T]he makings of a `pattern of racketeering' are not yet clear, but the fact remains that a `pattern' for civil purposes is a `pattern' for criminal purposes"). Yet 1964(c) is no different in this respect from the federal antitrust laws. In Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co., supra, we rejected the view that 1964(c) "provide[s] civil remedies for offenses criminal in nature." See 473 U.S., at 492 . In doing so, this Court observed: "[T]he fact that conduct can result in [482 U.S. 220, 240] both criminal liability and treble damages does not mean that there is not a bona fide civil action. The familiar provisions for both criminal liability and treble damages under the antitrust laws indicate as much." Ibid. Mitsubishi recognized that treble-damages suits for claims arising under 1 of the Sherman Act may be subject to arbitration, even though such conduct may also give rise to claims of criminal liability. See Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., supra. We similarly find that the criminal provisions of RICO do not preclude arbitration of bona fide civil actions brought under 1964(c).
The McMahons' final argument is that the public interest in the enforcement of RICO precludes its submission to arbitration. Mitsubishi again is relevant to the question. In that case we thoroughly examined the legislative intent behind 4 of the Clayton Act in assaying whether the importance of the private treble-damages remedy in enforcing the antitrust laws precluded arbitration of 4 claims. We found that "[n]otwithstanding its important incidental policing function, the treble-damages cause of action . . . seeks primarily to enable an injured competitor to gain compensation for that injury." 473 U.S., at 635 . Emphasizing the priority of the compensatory function of 4 over its deterrent function, Mitsubishi concluded that "so long as the prospective litigant effectively may vindicate its statutory cause of action in the arbitral forum, the statute will continue to serve both its remedial and deterrent function." Id., at 637. |
