When that predicate state usury statute includes a legal element - that is, 'not being authorized or permitted by law to do so,' N.Y. Penal Law 190.40 - is a defendant's sufficient knowledge regarding that legal element required to prove scienter for a RICO criminal conviction?

QUESTION PRESENTED BY THIS CASE 1S \A/HEN THAT PREDICATE STATE USURY STATUTE INCLUDES A LEGAL ELEMENT — . THAT IS, “NoT BEING AUTHORIZED OR PERMITTED BY LAW TO Bo So,. NY. Pewar Law 190.40 IS A DEFENDANT'S SUFFICIENT KNOWLEDSE REGARDING THAT LEGAL ELEMENT REQUIRED TO PRové SCIENTER FoR & RICO ceuninar CONVICTION 7? : ‘ t ‘ x il Question resented 2 THe Tautu m Lenping Aer Ga La’) expressty Derines tt A “cRevirog™ 15 USC. (602(5). Lr THEN Requires A CREDITOR. TO MAKE CERTAIN DISCLOSURES WHEN EXTENDING CONSUMER LodAns, (7 USC. (638 (4), THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY Tills CASE IS WHETHER A CRIMINAL TILA WoLATION UNDER I5 U.S.C. I6ll Réquires PRoof A. DEFENDANT MEETS THE STATUTORY DEFINITION O€ A ‘CREdITOR? | | | ill “