Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 53 — CRIMES · Chapter 949c — Corrupt Organizations and Racketeering Activity Act
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-393 (2026)

Short title: Corrupt Organizations and Racketeering Activity Act

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
This chapter shall be known as the “Corrupt Organizations and Racketeering Activity Act” and may be cited as “CORA”.

(P.A. 82-343, S. 1.)

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2024 · leading case: State v. Bush, 157 A.3d 586 (Conn. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Bush, 157 A.3d 586 (Conn. 2017). · cites it 4× “This certified appeal presents two significant issues, namely: (1) whether a court, in determining if sufficient evidence of an enterprise exists to sustain a conviction of racketeering in violation of the Corrupt Organizations and Racketeering Activity Act (CORA), General…”
State v. Caracoglia, 895 A.2d 810 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006). · cites it 2× “And this is not a [Corrupt Organizations and Racketeering Activity Act; General Statutes § 53-393 et seq.; or a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; 18 U.”
State v. Champagne, 538 A.2d 193 (Conn. 1988). · cites it 2× “The defendant, Dennis Champagne, stands accused of having knowingly engaged in a “pattern of racketeering activity” in violation of General Statutes § 53-395 (c) 1 of the Corrupt Organizations and Racketeering Activity Act (CORA), General Statutes § 53-393 et seq.”
People v. Jones, 32 N.Y.3d 1146 (N.Y. 2018). “; Conn Gen Stat Ann § 53-393 et seq. ; 18 Pa Stat and Cons Stat Ann § 911 et seq.”
State v. Bush, 178 A.3d 392 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 2× “*110 This case is before us on remand from our Supreme Court following its affirmance of our determination that insufficient evidence was presented at trial to sustain the conviction of the defendant, Richard Bush, for racketeering in violation of General Statutes § 53-393 et…”
State v. Bush (Conn. 2017). · cites it 2× “I conclude that the jury reasonably could have found that the state had proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of an association in fact between the defendant and the six other drug dealers who sold narcotics from the porch of his Bridgeport home. Therefore, I would…”
Greene v. Grimes (D. Conn. 2024). · cites it 2× “On substantially the same facts, Plaintiff now alleges that Defendants are part of a “racketeering” scheme in violation of the Connecticut Corrupt Organizations and Racketeering Activity Act (“CORA”), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-393 et seq. See Proposed SAC, ECF No.”
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.