(a) 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.
(b) It is unlawful for any person, through a pattern of racketeering activity or through the collection of an unlawful debt, to receive anything of value or to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise or real property.
(c) It is unlawful for any person employed by, or associated with, any enterprise to knowingly conduct or participate in, directly or indirectly, such enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity or through the collection of an unlawful debt.
(d) Speech, conduct or association to the extent protected by article first of the Constitution of the state or the first amendment to the United States Constitution shall not be considered unlawful under this section.
(P.A. 82-343, S. 3; P.A. 94-211.)
History: P.A. 94-211 added Subsec. (d) re speech, conduct or association protected by the state or federal constitution.
Cited. 206 C. 421; 229 C. 479; 238 C. 692.
Cited. 28 CA 306; 43 CA 555.
Subsec. (b):
Subsec. requires proof of an enterprise; under Subsec., an unchartered association in fact enterprise does not require proof of an ascertainable structure separate from that inherent in the pattern of racketeering activity with which defendant is charged. 297 C. 66.
Subsec. (c):
Proof of two separate cocaine sales did not establish that defendant and his two confederates operated as a continuing unit pursuant to an overall scheme in which they depended on each other for the accomplishment of a common, mutually beneficial purpose. 156 CA 256; judgment affirmed in part, see 325 C. 272.
Notes of Decisions
State v. Rodriguez-Roman, 3 A.3d 783 (Conn. 2010).
· cites it 34× “The majority concludes in part I of its opinion that the state was required under General Statutes § 53-395 (b) of the Corrupt Organizations and Racketeering Activity Act (CORA), to prove that the defendant, Jannette Rodriguez-Roman, engaged in at least two incidents of…”
State v. Bush, 157 A.3d 586 (Conn. 2017).
· cites it 14× “rson who is drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes § 21a-277 (a), six counts of sale of narcotics within 1500 feet of a school by a person who is drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes §§ 21a-277 and 21a-278a (b), one count of conspiracy to sell narcotics in…”
Antinerella v. Rioux, 642 A.2d 699 (Conn. 1994).
· cites it 4× “Moreover, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant, by having engaged in racketeering activities in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-159, 53a-161 and 53a-161c, 6 caused him serious economic and personal injury in violation of General Statutes § 53-395 et seq. 7 *484 The…”
State v. Buddhu, 825 A.2d 48 (Conn. 2003).
· cites it 3× “to 1995) § 53a-122 and General Statutes §§ 53a-8 and 53a-49 (a), and one count each of the crimes of larceny in the first degree as an accessory in violation of General Statutes (Eev.”
State v. Champagne, 538 A.2d 193 (Conn. 1988).
· cites it 4× “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.”
State v. Fleury, 42 A.3d 499 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012).
· cites it 8× “[2] Conspiracy to sell and conspiracy to possess hallucinogenic substances/narcotics, General Statutes §§ 53a-48, 21a-277 (a) and 21a-279 (a); violation of the Corrupt Organizations and Racketeering Activity Act, General Statutes § 53-395, by commission of predicate acts in…”
State v. Peeler, 841 A.2d 181 (Conn. 2004).
· cites it 2× “The defendant also was charged with one count of conspiracy to participate in an enterprise operating through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of General Statutes §§ 53-395 and 53a-48. The trial court subsequently granted the defendant’s motion to sever this count…”
State v. Carter, 703 A.2d 763 (Conn. 1997).
· cites it 4× “The information also charged the defendant with violating the Corrupt Organizations and Racketeering Activity Act (CORA) in violation of General Statutes § 53-395 (b) and (c) and conspiracy to violate CORA in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 53-395 (b) and (c).”
Washington v. Meachum, 680 A.2d 262 (Conn. 1996).
· cites it 2× “he interception is to be conducted may make application to a panel of judges for an order authorizing the interception of any wire communication by investigative officers having responsibility for the investigation of offenses as to which the application is made when such…”
State v. Ocasio, 751 A.2d 825 (Conn. 2000).
· cites it 3× “” General Statutes § 53-395 (c) provides: “It is unlawful for any person employed by, or associated with, any enterprise to knowingly conduct or *377 participate in, directly or indirectly, such enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity or through the collection of…”
Santana v. City of Hartford, 894 A.2d 307 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006).
· cites it 2× “nce with intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of § 2 la-278 (b), conspiracy to distribute narcotics by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 (a) and 21a-278 (b), conspiracy to sell a controlled substance in…”
Keesling v. Beegle, 880 N.E.2d 1202 (Ind. 2008).
· cites it 2× “§ 18-17-104(3) (2007); Conn. Gen.Stat. Ann. § 53-395(c) (2007); Fla.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-395(c) — 2 cases
Keesling v. Beegle, 880 N.E.2d 1202 (Ind. 2008).
“§ 18-17-104(3) (2007); Conn. Gen.Stat. Ann. § 53-395(c) (2007); Fla.”
State v. Fleury, 42 A.3d 499 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012).
“[2] Conspiracy to sell and conspiracy to possess hallucinogenic substances/narcotics, General Statutes §§ 53a-48, 21a-277 (a) and 21a-279 (a); violation of the Corrupt Organizations and Racketeering Activity Act, General Statutes § 53-395, by commission of predicate acts in…”
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.