Racketeering activity unlawful
- penalties
Source:
Section 166.720 — Racketeering activity unlawful; penalties, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors166.html.
Notes of Decisions
To withstand demurrer on ground of lack of specificity, indictment under RICO Act must particularly describe underlying predicate offenses. State v. Kincaid, 78 Or App 23, 714 P2d 624 (1986)
Conviction for racketeering and convictions for predicate offenses do not merge even though based on same conduct. State v. Blossom, 88 Or App 75, 744 P2d 281 (1987), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Wallock/Hara, 110 Or App 109, 821 P2d 435 (1991), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Gleason, 141 Or App 485, 919 P2d 1184 (1996), Sup Ct review denied
Where alleged predicate acts of mail and wire fraud did not satisfy “pattern of racketeering activity” requirement for federal action under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), defendants’ motions for summary judgment were granted and pendant state claims dismissed. Casablanca Productions v. Pace Intern. Research, 697 F Supp 1563 (D. Or. 1988)
To show individual is “enterprise,” more evidence is required than merely of individual committing multiple crimes with others and some connection between individual and organization must be contemplated. State v. Cheek, 100 Or App 501, 786 P2d 1305 (1990), Sup Ct review denied
Plaintiff is not required to establish “continuity,” of predicate acts over extended period or threat of future racketeering activity, in proceeding under this section. Computer Concepts, Inc. v. Brandt, 310 Or 706, 801 P2d 800 (1990)
To establish ORICO claim, plaintiff must allege and prove that plaintiff was injured by defendant’s use or investment of income derived from racketeering, rather than predicate acts of racketeering. Beckett v. Computer Career Institute, Inc., 120 Or App 143, 852 P2d 840 (1993)
Stockholder lacks standing to assert claims for harm derivative of harm to corporation. Loewen v. Galligan, 130 Or App 222, 882 P2d 104 (1994)
Exclusive administrative remedy to resolve disputes over amount of submitted billings did not preclude claim alleging that submitted billings were pattern of fraudulent behavior. SAIF v. Anderson/DeShaw, 321 Or 139, 894 P2d 1152 (1995)
Entity can be “enterprise” without sharing common purpose with defendant of engaging in criminal activity. State v. Gleason, 141 Or App 485, 919 P2d 1184 (1996), Sup Ct review denied
Where indictment for racketeering states particular circumstances of enterprise and of each predicate offense, statutory wording is sufficient statement of nexus between predicate offenses. State v. Fair, 326 Or 485, 953 P2d 383 (1998)
Terms “associated with” and “participate” are not unconstitutionally vague given context provided by other statutory terms. State v. Harris, 159 Or App 553, 980 P2d 1132 (1999), Sup Ct review denied
Requirement that indictment under ORICO Act must particularly describe underlying predicate offenses applies to both completed and inchoate ORICO crimes. State v. Stout, 281 Or App 263, 382 P3d 591 (2016), aff’d 362 Or 758, 415 P3d 567 (2018)
Up to date