CK • Washington.   Ein ausländisches Unternehmen erstritt ein Auslandsurteil wegen Vertragsverletzung gegen einen US-Kunden, der sein mit einem Stroh­mann verbundenes Vermögen verschleierte und die Vollstreckung ver­ei­tel­te, wo­raufhin eine Klage in den USA wegen verschwörerischen Betrugs nach dem RICO-Gesetz in den USA folgte. Im Revisionsurteil Cevdet Aksut Ve Ogullari Koll. STI v. Robin Cavusoglu fand es keine Genugtuung, weil das Gesetz auf die Handlungsauswirkungen in den USA abstellt, der Schaden an einem im­ma­te­ri­el­len Rechtsgut im Ausland eintrat und das voll­streckungs­ver­ei­tel­te Ur­teil im Ausland erlassen wurde. Das Bundesberufungsgericht des dritten Be­zirks der USA erklärte am 16. November 2018 ausführlich die relevanten An­knüp­fungs­merk­ma­le nach dem Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Or­ga­ni­za­ti­ons Act:

RICO allows recovery for domestic injuries to both tangible and in­tangible property. Thus, we must identify where the property is har­med. The harm to tangible property is deemed to occur where the property is located. So, a plaintiff suffers a domestic injury to tan­gib­le property "if the plaintiff's property was located in the Uni­ted Sta­tes when it was stolen or harmed, even if the plaintiff himself re­si­des abroad." Bascunan v. Elsaca, 874 F.3d 806, 820-21 (2d Cir. 2017).
To determine the location of an injury to intangible property, we "must focus primarily upon where the effects of the predicate acts were experienced." Id. at 707. To this end, we weigh a number of fac­tors, including:
where the injury itself arose; the location of the plaintiff's residence or principal place of business; where any alleged services were pro­vi­ded; where the plaintiff received or expected to receive the be­ne­fits as­so­cia­ted with providing such services; where any re­le­vant bu­siness agreements were entered into and the laws binding such agree­ments; and the location of the activities giving rise to the un­der­ly­ing dispute. Id.
No one factor is “presumptively dispositive." Id.