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

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-398 (2026)

Court orders

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) At any time in any prosecution under this chapter, the Superior Court shall have jurisdiction to render and may render the following orders:

(1) An order prohibiting the defendant from transferring, depleting or otherwise alienating or diminishing any property of his which there is probable cause to believe is subject to forfeiture under this chapter;

(2) An order appointing a receiver, in accordance with chapter 920 and the rules of court relating thereto which are not inconsistent with this chapter, over such property which there is probable cause to believe is subject to forfeiture under this chapter. Such receiver shall have all powers and obligations, subject to the supervision of the court, that exist under the statutes, the common law and the rules of court relating thereto, which are not inconsistent with this chapter, and shall be compensated with funds appropriated to the Judicial Department in an amount that the court determines is reasonable;

(3) An order permitting the defendant to transfer or deplete any property of his which there is probable cause to believe is subject to forfeiture under this chapter upon the posting by such defendant of such security as is equal to the value of the property described therein, which security shall be subject to forfeiture under this chapter to the extent that the property to which it relates otherwise would have been subject to forfeiture;

(4) Any other order, consistent with due process of law, that the court deems to be reasonable and necessary to protect the rights of any innocent person or entity or to effectuate the purposes of this chapter.

(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the right of the defendant to receive any net income or profits resulting from the use and ownership of such property belonging to him for which there is probable cause to believe is subject to forfeiture under this chapter until a final judgment of forfeiture is rendered.

(P.A. 82-343, S. 6.)

Cited. 206 C. 421; 224 C. 29; 229 C. 479.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1988–2001 · leading case: State v. Champagne, 538 A.2d 193 (Conn. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Champagne, 538 A.2d 193 (Conn. 1988). · cites it 22× “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.”
Pimper v. State Ex Rel. Simpson, 555 S.E.2d 459 (Ga. 2001). “Some states limit this pre-indictment seizure to a period not exceeding 90 days unless good cause or a subsequent indictment is shown. Nev.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 207.”
Calfee v. Usman, 616 A.2d 250 (Conn. 1992). “…lien); § 51-90g (hearing on attorney grievances); § 52-568 (vexatious suits); § 53-39 (malicious prosecution); § 53-398 (injunction pursuant to the Corrupt Organizations and Racketeering Activity Act); § 54-2a (arrest warrant); § 54-33a (search warrant); § 54-41d…”
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-398(a): 1 case
Pimper v. State Ex Rel. Simpson, 555 S.E.2d 459 (Ga. 2001). “Some states limit this pre-indictment seizure to a period not exceeding 90 days unless good cause or a subsequent indictment is shown. Nev.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 207.”
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.