Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 542.21 (2025)
Penalties for violation.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
542.21 Penalties for violation.—
(1) Any natural person who violates any of the provisions of s. 542.18 or s. 542.19 shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $100,000. Any other person who violates any of the provisions of s. 542.18 or s. 542.19 shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $1 million.
(2) Any person who knowingly violates any of the provisions of s. 542.18 or s. 542.19, or who knowingly aids in or advises such violation, is guilty of a felony, punishable by a fine not exceeding $1 million if a corporation, or, if any other person, $100,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 3 years, or by both said punishments.
(3) The commencement of trial seeking civil penalties in any action under this section shall bar any subsequent criminal prosecution against the same person for violation of s. 542.18 or s. 542.19, based upon the same acts. The commencement of trial in a criminal prosecution for violation of s. 542.18 or s. 542.19 shall bar any subsequent action against the same person for recovery of civil penalties under this section based upon the same acts, but shall not bar a subsequent suit for damages or injunctive relief under ss. 542.22 and 542.23.
(4) No action under this section or s. 542.23 shall be commenced by the Attorney General against any person who, at the time, is a defendant in a suit filed by the United States for violation or alleged violation of the federal antitrust laws involving substantially the same subject matter and seeking substantially the same relief.
Arrestable Offenses under F.S. 542.21
M = misdemeanor · F = felony · degree: F=1st S=2nd T=3rd§542.21(2)ANTITRUSTAID ADVISE RESTRAINT MONOPOLY TRADE COMMERCE
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1982–1986 · leading case: State v. Stabile, 443 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
State v. Stabile, 443 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). “Furthermore, if the trial court had based its prior dismissal on the fact that the trial of civil proceedings had already commenced such dismissal would necessarily have been with prejudice since the statute bars a criminal action under such circumstances.”
In Re Chicken Antitrust Litig. Am. Poultry, 669 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1982). “Code §§ 8-10-1, 8-10-2, 8-10-3 (1975); Fla.Stat. §§ 542.21-542.27 (1980). 21 . Altogether, some 2,404 claims had been filed by the time the allocation agreement was before the district court, 913 of which were from members of the wholesale distributor class.”
Hewitt Contracting Co. v. Dep't of Transp., 20 Fla. Supp. 2d 265 (Fla. Div. Admin. Hr'g 1986). “By Court Order, Exhibit 8, dated June 24, 1983, Hewitt was directed to give testimony to the Florida Attorney General under grant of immunity from criminal prosecution and from any civil penalty as *268 provided in § 542.21(1), Florida Statutes (1981), as to those transactions…”
— 542.21(1) — 1 case
Hewitt Contracting Co. v. Dep't of Transp., 20 Fla. Supp. 2d 265 (Fla. Div. Admin. Hr'g 1986). “By Court Order, Exhibit 8, dated June 24, 1983, Hewitt was directed to give testimony to the Florida Attorney General under grant of immunity from criminal prosecution and from any civil penalty as *268 provided in § 542.21(1), Florida Statutes (1981), as to those transactions…”
— 542.21(2) — 1 case
Hewitt Contracting Co. v. Dep't of Transp., 20 Fla. Supp. 2d 265 (Fla. Div. Admin. Hr'g 1986). “By Court Order, Exhibit 8, dated June 24, 1983, Hewitt was directed to give testimony to the Florida Attorney General under grant of immunity from criminal prosecution and from any civil penalty as *268 provided in § 542.21(1), Florida Statutes (1981), as to those transactions…”
— 542.21(3) — 1 case
State v. Stabile, 443 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). “Furthermore, if the trial court had based its prior dismissal on the fact that the trial of civil proceedings had already commenced such dismissal would necessarily have been with prejudice since the statute bars a criminal action under such circumstances.”
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.