Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 51 — COURTS · Chapter 886 — Division of Criminal Justice
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-279b (2026)

Racketeering unit. Bond forfeiture unit. Standards for compromise and settlement of forfeited bonds

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The Chief State's Attorney shall establish a racketeering and continuing criminal activities unit within the Division of Criminal Justice. Such unit shall be available for the investigation and prosecution of criminal matters including, but not limited to, the illegal purchase and sale of controlled substances, criminal activity by gangs, fraud, corruption, illegal gambling and the recruitment of persons to carry out such illegal activities.

(b) The Chief State's Attorney shall establish a bond forfeiture unit within the Division of Criminal Justice. Such unit shall be responsible for the collection, in the name of the state, and by suit when necessary, of all forfeited bonds payable to the state. Such unit may compromise and settle forfeited bonds for less than the amount thereof without regard to the expiration of any stay of forfeiture.

(c) The Chief State's Attorney shall develop uniform standards for the compromise and settlement of forfeited bonds. Such standards shall be applied on a state-wide basis.

(P.A. 94-164, S. 1–3, 8; P.A. 96-169, S. 18; July 21 Sp. Sess. P.A. 97-1, S. 1, 8.)

History: P.A. 96-169 amended Subsec. (d) to add the investigation and prosecution of vendor fraud in programs operated by the Department of Social Services as a purpose of the allocation of forfeited bonds (Revisor's note: The word “for” was added editorially by the Revisors before new language to conform added material to existing language); July 21 Sp. Sess. P.A. 97-1 deleted former Subsecs. (d) and (e) re allocation of funds collected as forfeited bonds, effective July 23, 1997, and applicable to fiscal year commencing July 1, 1997.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2001–2011 · leading case: State v. Sheriff, 21 A.3d 808 (Conn. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Sheriff, 21 A.3d 808 (Conn. 2011). · cites it 4× “Flavio argues that the chief state’s attorney’s responsibility to collect on bond forfeitures on behalf of the state; General Statutes § 51-279b (b); conflicts with his discretion to compromise on the amount of a bond; General Statutes § 51-279b (b); or to seek extradition;…”
B & B Bail Bonds Agency of Connecticut, Inc. v. Bailey, 770 A.2d 960 (Conn. 2001). · cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 51-279b (b) authorizes, but does not compel, the chief state’s attorney to compromise and settle forfeited bonds for less than the amount of (he bond.”
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.