(a) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of an unlawful debt.
(b) It is unlawful for any person, through a pattern of racketeering activity or proceeds derived therefrom, to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise, real property or personal property, of any nature, including money.
(c) It is unlawful for any person who has received any proceeds derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity in which such person has participated, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such proceeds or any proceeds derived from the investment or use thereof, in the acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise or real property.
(d) It is unlawful for any person to conspire or attempt to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b) or (c) of this section.
65 Del. Laws, c. 493,
§
1;
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · leading case:
State v. Kellam (Del. Super. Ct. 2024).
White v. State (Del. 2020).
· cites it 3× “1996) (holding that “[v]iolation of 11 Del. C. § 1503(a) does not require an agreement and can be achieved through the acts of one person,” and that “[i]t is clear that 11 Del.”
State v. Kellam (Del. Super. Ct. 2024).
· cites it 3× “2020) (citing 11 Del. C. § 1503). 68 11 Del. C. § 1502(5)a.”
State v. Roberts (Del. Super. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 2× “The State charged Defendant With racketeering in violation of 11 Del. C. § 1503(a), in addition to other counts of theft and forgery.”
State v. Wang (Del. Super. Ct. 2019).
· cites it 2× “84 11 Del. C. § 1503, titled “Violations”; id.”
Kellam v. State (Del. 2025).
· cites it 2× “Kellam was charged with racketeering under 11 Del. C. § 1503(a). Under that statute, a person is guilty of racketeering when they are “associated with” an enterprise and participate “in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.”
State v. Thomas (Del. Super. Ct. 2018).
“FREUD, Cornmissioner March 28, 2018 The Defendant, Deandrae Thomas (”Thomas”) pled guilty on January 26, 2012 to one count of Racketeering, 11 Del. C. § 1503; one count of Trafflcking Cocaine 100 Grams, 16 Del.”
Dorsey v. Carroll, 393 F. Supp. 2d 272 (D. Del. 2005).
“FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In January 2003, a Sussex County grand jury indicted petitioner on one count of racketeering (11 Del. C. Ann. § 1503), two counts of second degree criminal solicitation (11 Del.”
State of Delaware v. Ortiz. (Del. Super. Ct. 2015).
“MANNING, Commissioner (1) This 24th day of September, 2015, upon consideration of defendant Angel Ortiz’s motion for postconviction relief (“Motion”), the Court finds the following: (2) On November 17, 2014, Ortiz pled guilty to one count of Racketeering in violation of 11 Del.…”
— 11 Del. C. § 1503(a) — 6 cases
State v. Roberts (Del. Super. Ct. 2018).
“The State charged Defendant With racketeering in violation of 11 Del. C. § 1503(a), in addition to other counts of theft and forgery.”
Kellam v. State (Del. 2025).
“Kellam was charged with racketeering under 11 Del. C. § 1503(a). Under that statute, a person is guilty of racketeering when they are “associated with” an enterprise and participate “in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.”
State v. Wang (Del. Super. Ct. 2019).
“84 11 Del. C. § 1503, titled “Violations”; id.”
White v. State (Del. 2020).
“1996) (holding that “[v]iolation of 11 Del. C. § 1503(a) does not require an agreement and can be achieved through the acts of one person,” and that “[i]t is clear that 11 Del.”
State v. Kellam (Del. Super. Ct. 2024).
“2020) (citing 11 Del. C. § 1503). 68 11 Del. C. § 1502(5)a.”
— 11 Del. C. § 1503(d) — 2 cases
White v. State (Del. 2020).
“1996) (holding that “[v]iolation of 11 Del. C. § 1503(a) does not require an agreement and can be achieved through the acts of one person,” and that “[i]t is clear that 11 Del.”
State v. Kellam (Del. Super. Ct. 2024).
“2020) (citing 11 Del. C. § 1503). 68 11 Del. C. § 1502(5)a.”
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.