Offenses Against Public Order

ORS 166.720
Racketeering activity unlawful

  • penalties


(1)

It is unlawful for any person who has knowingly received any proceeds derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through the collection of an unlawful debt to use or invest, whether directly or indirectly, any part of such proceeds, or the proceeds derived from the investment or use thereof, in the acquisition of any title to, or any right, interest or equity in, real property or in the establishment or operation of any enterprise.

(2)

It is unlawful for any person, through a pattern of racketeering activity or through the collection of an unlawful debt, to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any real property or enterprise.

(3)

It is unlawful for any person employed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity or the collection of an unlawful debt.

(4)

It is unlawful for any person to conspire or endeavor to violate any of the provisions of subsections (1), (2) or (3) of this section.

(5)

(a) Any person convicted of engaging in activity in violation of the provisions of subsections (1) to (4) of this section is guilty of a Class A felony.

(b)

In lieu of a fine otherwise authorized by law, any person convicted of engaging in conduct in violation of the provisions of subsections (1) to (4) of this section, through which the person derived a pecuniary value, or by which the person caused personal injury or property damage or other loss, may be sentenced to pay a fine that does not exceed three times the gross value gained or three times the gross loss caused, whichever is greater, plus court costs and the costs of investigation and prosecution, reasonably incurred.

(c)

The court shall hold a hearing to determine the amount of the fine authorized by paragraph (b) of this subsection.

(d)

For the purposes of paragraph (b) of this subsection, “pecuniary value” means:

(A)

Anything of value in the form of money, a negotiable instrument, a commercial interest or anything else the primary significance of which is economic advantage; or

(B)

Any other property or service that has a value in excess of $100.

(6)

An allegation of a pattern of racketeering activity is sufficient if it contains substantially the following:

(a)

A statement of the acts constituting each incident of racketeering activity in ordinary and concise language, and in a manner that enables a person of common understanding to know what is intended;

(b)

A statement of the relation to each incident of racketeering activity that the conduct was committed on or about a designated date, or during a designated period of time;

(c)

A statement, in the language of ORS 166.715 (Definitions for ORS 166.715 to 166.735) (4) or other ordinary and concise language, designating which distinguishing characteristic or characteristics interrelate the incidents of racketeering activity; and

(d)

A statement that the incidents alleged were not isolated. [1981 c.769 §§3,4; 1997 c.789 §2]

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)

§§ 166.715 to 166.735

Notes of Decisions

RICO statutes are not indefinite or vague. State v. Romig, 73 Or App 780, 700 P2d 293 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

Oregon RICO statutes should be interpreted consistently with federal RICO statute, on which Oregon statute is based. Ahern v. Gaussoin, 611 F Supp 1465 (1985)

Oregon RICO statute would be interpreted in same manner as parallel. Schnitzer v. Oppenheimer and Co., Inc., 633 F Supp 92 (1985)

Plaintiffs' assertions that defendant conducted a pattern of racketeering activity that included numerous instances of mail, wire and securities fraud was sufficient to state a claim under RICO. Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Poirier, 653 F Supp 63 (1986)

These sections allow multiple convictions and consecutive sentences for racketeering and predicate offenses. State v. Blossom, 88 Or App 75, 744 P2d 281 (1987), Sup Ct review denied

Because Oregon statute was modeled after federal statutes, 18 U.S.C. 1961 to 1968, federal cases interpreting federal statute are persuasive in interpreting intent of Oregon legislature. State v. Blossom, 88 Or App 75, 744 P2d 281 (1987), Sup Ct review denied

Investment companies' failure to adequately supervise their officer or agent could impose liability for secondary violations of securities laws. Pincetich v. Jeanfreau, 699 F Supp 1469 (D. Or. 1988)

Law Review Citations

18 WLR 1 (1982)

Chapter 166

Law Review Citations

51 OLR 427-637 (1972); 69 OLR 169 (1990)


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021