Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 13
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2312 (2026)

Illegal control of an enterprise; illegally conducting an enterprise; classification

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. A person commits illegal control of an enterprise if such person, through racketeering or its proceeds, acquires or maintains, by investment or otherwise, control of any enterprise.

B. A person commits illegally conducting an enterprise if such person is employed by or associated with any enterprise and conducts such enterprise's affairs through racketeering or participates directly or indirectly in the conduct of any enterprise that the person knows is being conducted through racketeering.

C. A person violates this section if the person hires, engages or uses a minor for any conduct preparatory to or in completion of any offense in this section.

D. A knowing violation of subsection A or B is a class 3 felony.  A knowing violation of subsection C is a class 2 felony and the person is not eligible for probation, pardon, suspension of sentence or release on any basis until the person has served the sentence imposed by the court or the sentence is commuted.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: State v. Cook, 916 P.2d 1074 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Cook, 916 P.2d 1074 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 14× “[2] Again, we must determine whether an offense under section 13-2312 is the same offense as an offense under either sections 44-1841, 44-1842 or 44-1991, the statutes that the commission found that the defendant had violated.”
Baines v. Superior Court in & for Pima Cnty., 688 P.2d 1037 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 16× “All of the defendants, including petitioners, were charged under Count 4 of the indictment with illegally conducting an enterprise in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2312. Petitioner Angel Chiquette was also charged under Count 13 of the indictment with conspiracy, in violation of A.”
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Pickrell, 667 P.2d 1304 (Ariz. 1983). · cites it 6× “We hold further that a complaint is sufficient to allege a cause of action under A.R.S. § 13-2312 when it alleges that the injury was caused by defendant’s illegal control or conduct of an enterprise by or through racketeering.”
State v. Schwartz, 935 P.2d 891 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 15× “Accordingly, we adopt the approach adopted by the majority of the federal circuits, finding that a sole proprietor can associate with other individuals to create an enterprise for purposes of A.R.S. § 13-2312. Here, defendant associated with Debbie Lauhoff, Randi Marshall, Tina…”
State v. Feld, 745 P.2d 146 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 17× “, are unconstitutional as applied to obscenity proceedings, and by granting defendants’ motion to dismiss Count I. RICO is an acronym for the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statutes, 18 U.”
Hannosh v. Segal, 328 P.3d 1049 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “rson who sustains reasonably foreseeable injury to his person, business or property by a pattern of racketeering activity, or by a violation of § 13-2312 involving a pattern of racketeering activity, may file an action in superior court for the recovery of up to treble damages…”
Holeman v. Neils, 803 F. Supp. 237 (D. Ariz. 1992). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 13-2312 (1989); State ex rel. Corbin v.”
State Ex Rel. Napolitano v. Gravano, 60 P.3d 246 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “The Arizona attorney general may also bring an in rem action for forfeiture of “[a]ny property or interest in property acquired or maintained by a person in violation of § 13-2312” 3 and “[a]ll proceeds traceable to an offense included in the definition of racketeering in §…”
In Re Am. Cont'l Corp./Lincoln Sav. & Loan Sec. Litig., 794 F. Supp. 1424 (D. Ariz. 1992). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 13-2312. ‘Racketeering’ is defined, in pertinent part, to include any act, “committed for financial gain which is chargeable or indictable under the laws of this state and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year,” including: (r) Fraud in the sale of securities.”
Tonnemacher v. Sasak, 859 F. Supp. 1273 (D. Ariz. 1994). · cites it 10× “When discussing the elements of section 13-2312, the Corbin court stated that a plaintiff seeking relief must establish injury based upon the defendant’s control or conduct of an enterprise by racketeering.”
Warfield v. Gardner, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (D. Ariz. 2004). · cites it 3× “04 creates a private cause of action in favor of “[a] person who sustains reasonably foreseeable injury to his person, business or property by a pattern of racketeering activity, or by a violation of § 13-2312 involving a pattern of racketeering activity .”
State Ex Rel. Goddard v. Gravano, 108 P.3d 251 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “Appellant pled guilty to one count of conducting a criminal enterprise in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2312(B), and received probation.”
Show all 46 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2312(A) — 4 cases
State v. Schwartz, 935 P.2d 891 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “Accordingly, we adopt the approach adopted by the majority of the federal circuits, finding that a sole proprietor can associate with other individuals to create an enterprise for purposes of A.R.S. § 13-2312. Here, defendant associated with Debbie Lauhoff, Randi Marshall, Tina…”
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Pickrell, 667 P.2d 1304 (Ariz. 1983). “We hold further that a complaint is sufficient to allege a cause of action under A.R.S. § 13-2312 when it alleges that the injury was caused by defendant’s illegal control or conduct of an enterprise by or through racketeering.”
State v. Gehon (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Lacy (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2312(B) — 9 cases
Baines v. Superior Court in & for Pima Cnty., 688 P.2d 1037 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). “All of the defendants, including petitioners, were charged under Count 4 of the indictment with illegally conducting an enterprise in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2312. Petitioner Angel Chiquette was also charged under Count 13 of the indictment with conspiracy, in violation of A.”
State v. Schwartz, 935 P.2d 891 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “Accordingly, we adopt the approach adopted by the majority of the federal circuits, finding that a sole proprietor can associate with other individuals to create an enterprise for purposes of A.R.S. § 13-2312. Here, defendant associated with Debbie Lauhoff, Randi Marshall, Tina…”
State Ex Rel. Goddard v. Gravano, 108 P.3d 251 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “Appellant pled guilty to one count of conducting a criminal enterprise in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2312(B), and received probation.”
Tonnemacher v. Sasak, 859 F. Supp. 1273 (D. Ariz. 1994). “When discussing the elements of section 13-2312, the Corbin court stated that a plaintiff seeking relief must establish injury based upon the defendant’s control or conduct of an enterprise by racketeering.”
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Pickrell, 667 P.2d 1304 (Ariz. 1983). “We hold further that a complaint is sufficient to allege a cause of action under A.R.S. § 13-2312 when it alleges that the injury was caused by defendant’s illegal control or conduct of an enterprise by or through racketeering.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2312(C) — 1 case
State v. Feld, 745 P.2d 146 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “, are unconstitutional as applied to obscenity proceedings, and by granting defendants’ motion to dismiss Count I. RICO is an acronym for the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statutes, 18 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.