Offenses Against Property

ORS 164.075
Extortion

(1)

A person commits the crime of extortion when the person compels or induces another person to either deliver property or services to the person or to a third person, or refrain from reporting unlawful conduct to a law enforcement agency, by instilling in the other person a fear that, if the property or services are not so delivered or if the unlawful conduct is reported, the actor or a third person will in the future:

(a)

Unlawfully cause physical injury to some person;

(b)

Unlawfully cause damage to property;

(c)

Engage in other conduct constituting a crime;

(d)

Accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against the person;

(e)

Report the immigration status, or suspected immigration status, of the other person, or some other person known to the other person, to a law enforcement agency;

(f)

Cause or continue a strike, boycott or other collective action injurious to some person’s business, except that such conduct is not considered extortion when the property is demanded or received for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act;

(g)

Testify falsely or provide false information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another’s legal claim or defense; or

(h)

Unlawfully use or abuse the position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely.

(2)

Extortion is a Class B felony. [1971 c.743 §127; 1987 c.158 §27; 2007 c.71 §48; 2016 c.47 §2]

Notes of Decisions

Where store manager told police about bomb threat and they directed him to give defendant's accomplice marked bills, it was factual determination for jury whether manager was in part motivated by fear of explosion in giving accomplice money. State v. Marsh, 43 Or App 571, 603 P2d 1212 (1979), Sup Ct review denied

Where, at direction of police officer, victim offered money to defendant to obtain the return of stolen purse, defendant's subsequent threat to forge checks on victim's bank account did not motivate the pre-arranged exchange and so did not constitute theft by extortion. State v. Gholston, 55 Or App 790, 639 P2d 1302 (1982), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant threatened to discard cellular phone before victim agreed to pay for its return, defendant was properly convicted of theft by extortion. State v. Davis, 115 Or App 711, 839 P2d 283 (1992)

§§ 164.005 to 164.135

Law Review Citations

51 OLR 432, 525-536 (1972); 10 WLJ 156 (1974)

Chapter 164

Law Review Citations

51 OLR 427-637 (1972)

Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021

REMOVE ADS