Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 18
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-17-104 (2026)

Prohibited activities

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) (a) It is unlawful for any person who knowingly has 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. (b) A purchase of securities on the open market for purposes of investment, and without the intention of controlling or participating in the control of the issuer, or of assisting another to do so, shall not be unlawful under this subsection (1) if the securities of the issuer held by the purchaser, the members of his immediate family, and his or their accomplices in any pattern of racketeering activity or the collection of an unlawful debt after such purchase do not amount in the aggregate to one percent of the outstanding securities of any one class and do not confer, either in law or in fact, the power to elect one or more directors of the issuer. (2) It is unlawful for any person, through a pattern of racketeering activity or through the collection of an unlawful debt, to knowingly acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise or real property. (3) It is unlawful for any person employed by, or associated with, any enterprise to knowingly 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 subsection (1), (2), or (3) of this section.

Source: L. 81: Entire article added, p. 1018, § 1, effective July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 69 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: New Crawford Valley, Ltd. v. Benedict, 877 P.2d 1363 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
New Crawford Valley, Ltd. v. Benedict, 877 P.2d 1363 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 46× “” Section 18-17-104, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol.”
IN RE the MARRIAGE OF Penny Brabb TURILLI, & Cross-Appellee, & Steven Daniel Turilli, &, 507 P.3d 83 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3× “2021 (any person injured by a violation of section 18-17-104, C.R.S. 2021, "shall also recover attorney fees in the trial and appellate courts"); § 24-34-402.”
Ferris v. Bakery, Confectionery & Tobacco Union, Local 26, 867 P.2d 38 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 14× “Four prohibited activities are set forth under § 18-17-104, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B). Ferris does not identify which claim she makes; however, a claim under any part of this statute must fail.”
Fed. Deposit Ins. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 937 F. Supp. 1461 (D. Colo. 1996). · cites it 17× “to violate C.R.S. § 18-17-104(3) by agreeing, formally or tacitly, or by attempting to participate, directly or indirectly, in the enterprise referred to above through a pattern of racketeering activity.”
Fed. Deposit Ins. v. Refco Grp., Ltd., 989 F. Supp. 1052 (D. Colo. 1997). · cites it 14× “FDIC’s first claim is under COCCA section 104(3), which states: It is unlawful for any person employed by or associated with, any enterprise to knowingly conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity----…”
People v. DESTRO, 215 P.3d 1147 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “See also § 18-17-104, C.R.S.2007. A person acts knowingly with respect to conduct "when he is aware that his conduct is of such nature or that such cireumstance exists.”
People v. Finley, 141 P.3d 911 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Defendant, Joseph Finley, appeals the judgment of conviction entered on his guilty plea to violation of the Colorado Organized Crime and Control Act (COCCA), § 18-17-104(3), C.R.S.2005. He also appeals the sentence imposed.”
Tallitsch v. Child Support Servs., Inc., 926 P.2d 143 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “8B), provides: Any person injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of section 18-17-104 shall have a cause of action for threefold the actual damages sustained.”
Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Kozeny, 115 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D. Colo. 2000). · cites it 15× “any person to conspire or endeavor to violate any of the provisions of subsection (1), (2), or (3) of [ C.R.S. § 18-17-104], § 18-17-104(4) Section 18-17-104(1), (2), and(4), C.”
Brooks v. Bank of Boulder, 891 F. Supp. 1469 (D. Colo. 1995). · cites it 10× “Plaintiffs’ ninth and eleventh claims for relief are brought under Colo.Rev.Stat. § 18-17-104(3) (1986), a provision of COCCA that is modelled after RICO § 1962(c).”
People v. Schupper, 353 P.3d 880 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “In pertinent part, defendant was charged with racketeering, § 18-17-104, C.R.S.2013; theft, § 18-4-401(2)(d), C.”
Henson v. Bank of Am., 935 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (D. Colo. 2013). · cites it 9× “Colorado law provides that “any person injured by reason of any violation” under Colo. Rev.Stat. § 18-17-104 “shall have a cause of action for threefold actual damages sustained.”
Show all 69 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-17-104(1) — 8 cases
New Crawford Valley, Ltd. v. Benedict, 877 P.2d 1363 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). “” Section 18-17-104, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol.”
Super Valu Stores, Inc. v. Dist. Court in & for Weld Cnty., 906 P.2d 72 (Colo. 1995).
Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Kozeny, 115 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D. Colo. 2000). “any person to conspire or endeavor to violate any of the provisions of subsection (1), (2), or (3) of [ C.R.S. § 18-17-104], § 18-17-104(4) Section 18-17-104(1), (2), and(4), C.”
Henson v. Bank of Am., 935 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (D. Colo. 2013). “Colorado law provides that “any person injured by reason of any violation” under Colo. Rev.Stat. § 18-17-104 “shall have a cause of action for threefold actual damages sustained.”
Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Kozeny, 115 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (D. Colo. 2000).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-17-104(1)(a) — 5 cases
People v. Cerrone, 867 P.2d 143 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).
Brooks v. Bank of Boulder, 911 F. Supp. 470 (D. Colo. 1996).
Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pitts. v. Kozeny, 115 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (D. Colo. 2000).
Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pitts. v. Kozeny, 115 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D. Colo. 2000).
Detroit Street Partners Inc. v. James A. Lustig (D. Colo. 2019).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-17-104(2) — 10 cases
New Crawford Valley, Ltd. v. Benedict, 877 P.2d 1363 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). “” Section 18-17-104, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol.”
Alter v. Dblkm, Inc., 840 F. Supp. 799 (D. Colo. 1993).
Ferris v. Bakery, Confectionery & Tobacco Union, Local 26, 867 P.2d 38 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). “Four prohibited activities are set forth under § 18-17-104, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B). Ferris does not identify which claim she makes; however, a claim under any part of this statute must fail.”
People v. Pourat, 100 P.3d 503 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004).
Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Kozeny, 115 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D. Colo. 2000). “any person to conspire or endeavor to violate any of the provisions of subsection (1), (2), or (3) of [ C.R.S. § 18-17-104], § 18-17-104(4) Section 18-17-104(1), (2), and(4), C.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-17-104(3) — 30 cases
People v. Finley, 141 P.3d 911 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). “Defendant, Joseph Finley, appeals the judgment of conviction entered on his guilty plea to violation of the Colorado Organized Crime and Control Act (COCCA), § 18-17-104(3), C.R.S.2005. He also appeals the sentence imposed.”
Fed. Deposit Ins. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 937 F. Supp. 1461 (D. Colo. 1996). “to violate C.R.S. § 18-17-104(3) by agreeing, formally or tacitly, or by attempting to participate, directly or indirectly, in the enterprise referred to above through a pattern of racketeering activity.”
Fed. Deposit Ins. v. Refco Grp., Ltd., 989 F. Supp. 1052 (D. Colo. 1997). “FDIC’s first claim is under COCCA section 104(3), which states: It is unlawful for any person employed by or associated with, any enterprise to knowingly conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity----…”
New Crawford Valley, Ltd. v. Benedict, 877 P.2d 1363 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). “” Section 18-17-104, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol.”
People v. Chaussee, 880 P.2d 749 (Colo. 1994).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-17-104(4) — 14 cases
New Crawford Valley, Ltd. v. Benedict, 877 P.2d 1363 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). “” Section 18-17-104, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol.”
Fed. Deposit Ins. v. Refco Grp., Ltd., 989 F. Supp. 1052 (D. Colo. 1997). “FDIC’s first claim is under COCCA section 104(3), which states: It is unlawful for any person employed by or associated with, any enterprise to knowingly conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity----…”
Fed. Deposit Ins. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 937 F. Supp. 1461 (D. Colo. 1996). “to violate C.R.S. § 18-17-104(3) by agreeing, formally or tacitly, or by attempting to participate, directly or indirectly, in the enterprise referred to above through a pattern of racketeering activity.”
Archangel Diamond Corp. Liquidating Trust v. OAO Lukoil, 75 F. Supp. 3d 1343 (D. Colo. 2014).
Ferris v. Bakery, Confectionery & Tobacco Union, Local 26, 867 P.2d 38 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). “Four prohibited activities are set forth under § 18-17-104, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B). Ferris does not identify which claim she makes; however, a claim under any part of this statute must fail.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-17-104(8) — 5 cases
Tallitsch v. Child Support Servs., Inc., 926 P.2d 143 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). “8B), provides: Any person injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of section 18-17-104 shall have a cause of action for threefold the actual damages sustained.”
People v. Davis, 296 P.3d 219 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
People v. Randell, 297 P.3d 989 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
People v. Hoover, 165 P.3d 784 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
People v. Pollard, 3 P.3d 473 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-17-104(l) — 1 case
Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Kozeny, 115 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (D. Colo. 2000).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-17-104(l)(a) — 8 cases
Brooks v. Bank of Boulder, 891 F. Supp. 1469 (D. Colo. 1995). “Plaintiffs’ ninth and eleventh claims for relief are brought under Colo.Rev.Stat. § 18-17-104(3) (1986), a provision of COCCA that is modelled after RICO § 1962(c).”
Ferris v. Bakery, Confectionery & Tobacco Union, Local 26, 867 P.2d 38 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). “Four prohibited activities are set forth under § 18-17-104, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B). Ferris does not identify which claim she makes; however, a claim under any part of this statute must fail.”
Sender v. Mann, 423 F. Supp. 2d 1155 (D. Colo. 2006).
Brooks v. Bank of Boulder, 911 F. Supp. 470 (D. Colo. 1996).
People v. Cerrone, 867 P.2d 143 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).
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.