Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, RICO—E.D.N.Y.: Suit alleging racketeering over Chinese mooncakes dismissed, (Nov 7, 2025)

By Brian Craig, J.D.

The claims based entirely on a single transaction do not adequately allege an enterprise or a pattern of racketeering activity.

In a case brought by snack food distributor May Flower Internation, Inc. against wholesale food sellers alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act over the sale of mooncakes, the federal district court in Brookyln, New York has dismissed all claims. The court concluded that the claims based on a single transaction over the sale of mooncakes for 11 months are the garden-variety type claims that should be weeded out because the complaint does not plausibly allege an enterprise or a pattern of racketeering activity (May Flower International, Inc. v. Amoy Food Ltd., No. 1:24-cv-04909-OEM-VMS (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2025)).

A snack food distributor, May Flower International, Inc., entered into a contract in 2021 with KND Global LLC (“KND”) for $1.2 million to purchase mooncakes. A mooncake is a small, round pastry traditionally associated with the Mid-Autumn Festival in Chinese culture. The distributor allegedly made a partial payment by check. After a delivery, the snack food distributor allegedly discovered that the mooncakes were not manufactured by Amoy Food Limited (“Amoy”) in Hong Kong but were, in fact, manufactured by a different company in Foshan City, Guangdong Province, China. The distributor then allegedly returned the mooncakes. KND commenced a collections action in 2022 against the distributor and its owner in New York state court, which is currently pending. In 2024, the distributor filed suit in the federal district court in New York against various defendant food wholesalers and manufactureres, including Amoy, KND, and Best Food Services, Inc. The complaint alleges that the defendants intentionally misrepresented that the mooncakes were manufactured by Amoy in Hong Kong to induce the distributor to enter into the contract. The distributor alleges that it reasonably relied upon that misrepresentation and incurred $446,815 in damages. The distributor alleges two counts of RICO violations and one count of New York common law fraud. The defendant wholesale food sellers moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Criminal enterprise. The court concluded that the complaint fails to plausibly allege a criminal enterprise to support a civil RICO claim. An association-in-fact enterprise must have at least three structural features: a purpose, relationships among those associated with the enterprise, and longevity sufficient to permit these associates to pursue the enterprise’s purpose. An enterprise must be an entity separate and apart from the pattern of activity in which it engages. In this case, the court concluded that the complaint focuses solely on the single mooncake transaction. The complaint fails to put forward any allegations indicating that the alleged enterprises existed separate and distinct from the fraudulent scheme. The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that such allegations cannot form the basis of a RICO enterprise. Courts must scrutinize civil RICO claims early in the litigation to separate the rare complaint that actually states a claim for civil RICO from that more obviously alleging common law fraud.

Racketeering activity. The court also concluded that the complaint fails to adequately allege racketeering activity for a civil RICO claim. To establish a pattern, a plaintiff must allege two or more predicate acts of racketeering. The predicate acts can be based on either a closed-ended pattern or an open-ended pattern. Here, the complaint alleges activity over a period of only 11 months. Such brevity falls short of the Second Circuit’s two-year minimum for closed-ended continuity. Furthermore, the claims based on the single mooncake transaction that has ended is not an open-ended pattern. The complaint alleges the defendants committed mail fraud, wire fraud, and extortion for a period of approximately 11 months in connection to a single contract. Where the single transaction has ended and no predicate acts have continued, these facts cannot support a racketeering activity under RICO. The court concluded that the claims based on a single transaction are the garden-variety type claims that should be weeded out because the complaint fails to allege an enterprise or a pattern of racketeering activity.

Supplemental jurisdiction. Because the federal RICO claims fail, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the New York state common law fraud claim.

Leave to amend. Finally, the court denied the distributor the opportunity to amend the complaint. The distributor has already amended its complaint once and failed to identify any additional facts or legal theories. Therefore, the court dismissed the case with prejudice and closed the case.

The Case is No. 1:24-cv-04909-OEM-VMS.

Judge: Merchant, O.

Attorneys: Ge Li (Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C.) for May Flower International, Inc. Amiad Moshe Kushner (Seiden Law LLP) for Amoy Food Ltd.

Companies: May Flower International, Inc.; Amoy Food Ltd.

Cases: RICO NewYorkNews