Fla. Stat. » 772
Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 772.103 (2025)

Prohibited activities.

✓ 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
772.103 Prohibited activities.—It is unlawful for any person:
(1) Who has with criminal intent received any proceeds derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of criminal 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.
(2) Through a pattern of criminal activity or through the collection of an unlawful debt, to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise or real property.
(3) Employed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity or the collection of an unlawful debt.
(4) To conspire or endeavor to violate any of the provisions of subsection (1), subsection (2), or subsection (3).
History.—s. 3, ch. 86-277.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 100 cases (48 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: Ginsberg v. Lennar Florida Holdings, 645 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ginsberg v. Lennar Florida Holdings, 645 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). · cites it 14× “103(3), Florida Statutes for the operation of a criminal enterprise dedicated to the ongoing theft of the rents if the rents have not been and could not have been stolen by those allegedly doing the stealing.”
Sandra Jackson v. BellSouth Telecomm., 372 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2004). · cites it 4× “§ 1962 (b)-(d), and Florida’s RICO analog, the Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 772.103 (2)-(4). 17 We have explained that interpretation of Florida’s RICO law “is informed by case law interpreting the federal RICO statute .”
Spadaro v. City of Miramar, 855 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (S.D. Fla. 2012). · cites it 14× “§ 1962 (“RICO”), and the equivalent Florida statute, Fla. Stat. § 772.103 (Counts XIII-XV). Defendants have now filed motions to dismiss.”
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Boeing Co., 314 F. Supp. 2d 1198 (M.D. Fla. 2004). · cites it 16× “” § 772.103(2), Fla. Stat. (2003). Criminal activity includes several predicate crimes named in section 772.”
Talisman Capital Alt. Investments Fund, Ltd. v. Mouttet (In re Mouttet), 493 B.R. 640 (Bankr. S.D. Florida 2013). · cites it 10× “Accordingly those portions of the Complaint that survive must be properly pleaded, in an orderly manner such that one can understand the facts upon which the Plaintiffs rely. Failure to Comply with Rules 8, 9 and 12 — the RICO claims Plaintiff Talisman seeks relief under…”
Florida Evergreen Foliage v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 336 F. Supp. 2d 1239 (S.D. Fla. 2004). · cites it 5× “The relevant Florida RICO provision makes it unlawful for any person “[ejmployed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity or the collection of an unlawful debt.”
Allstate Ins. v. Palterovich, 653 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (S.D. Fla. 2009). · cites it 8× “Fla. Stat. §§ 772.103 , 772.104. Section 772.”
Colonial Penn Ins. v. Value Rent-A-Car Inc., 814 F. Supp. 1084 (S.D. Fla. 1992). · cites it 8× “§ 1962 (a) and Fla.Stat. § 772.103(1). Defendants Value, Consumer and Cohen move to dismiss claims asserting violations of 18 U.”
Cont'l 332 Fund, LLC v. Albertelli, 317 F. Supp. 3d 1124 (M.D. Fla. 2018). · cites it 2× “Fla. Stat. § 772.103 . But it "is informed by case law interpreting the federal RICO statute.”
State of Fla., Off. of Atty. v. Tenet Healthcare, 420 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (S.D. Fla. 2005). · cites it 4× “§ 1962 (d) (Count II); violation of Florida’s civil RICO statute, Fla. Stat. §§ 772.103 (3) and 772.104 (Count III); conspiracy to violate Fla.”
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Boeing Co., 357 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (M.D. Fla. 2005). · cites it 5× “§ 1962 (a) and § 772.103(1), Florida Statutes, by receiving income from a pattern of racketeering activity which they used and invested in the establishment and op *1358 eration of Boeing.”
William M. Rogers v. Joseph P. Nacchio, 241 F. App'x 602 (11th Cir. 2007). · cites it 3× “§ 78j(b); the Florida RICO statute, Fla. Stat. § 772.103 ; the Colorado RICO statute, Colo.”
Show all 100 citing cases →
— 772.103(1) — 7 cases
Colonial Penn Ins. v. Value Rent-A-Car Inc., 814 F. Supp. 1084 (S.D. Fla. 1992). “§ 1962 (a) and Fla.Stat. § 772.103(1). Defendants Value, Consumer and Cohen move to dismiss claims asserting violations of 18 U.”
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Boeing Co., 357 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (M.D. Fla. 2005). “§ 1962 (a) and § 772.103(1), Florida Statutes, by receiving income from a pattern of racketeering activity which they used and invested in the establishment and op *1358 eration of Boeing.”
Ward v. Nierlich, 617 F. Supp. 2d 1226 (S.D. Fla. 2008).
Lavornia v. Rivers, 669 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
Plastiquim, S.A. v. Odebrecht Constr., Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2022).
— 772.103(2) — 4 cases
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Boeing Co., 314 F. Supp. 2d 1198 (M.D. Fla. 2004). “” § 772.103(2), Fla. Stat. (2003). Criminal activity includes several predicate crimes named in section 772.”
Colonial Penn Ins. v. Value Rent-A-Car Inc., 814 F. Supp. 1084 (S.D. Fla. 1992). “§ 1962 (a) and Fla.Stat. § 772.103(1). Defendants Value, Consumer and Cohen move to dismiss claims asserting violations of 18 U.”
Ward v. Nierlich, 617 F. Supp. 2d 1226 (S.D. Fla. 2008).
Lavornia v. Rivers, 669 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
— 772.103(3) — 17 cases
Ginsberg v. Lennar Florida Holdings, 645 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). “103(3), Florida Statutes for the operation of a criminal enterprise dedicated to the ongoing theft of the rents if the rents have not been and could not have been stolen by those allegedly doing the stealing.”
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Boeing Co., 314 F. Supp. 2d 1198 (M.D. Fla. 2004). “” § 772.103(2), Fla. Stat. (2003). Criminal activity includes several predicate crimes named in section 772.”
Bambu v. EI Dupont De Nemours & Co., Inc., 881 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).
Florida Evergreen Foliage v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 336 F. Supp. 2d 1239 (S.D. Fla. 2004). “The relevant Florida RICO provision makes it unlawful for any person “[ejmployed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity or the collection of an unlawful debt.”
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Boeing Co., 357 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (M.D. Fla. 2005). “§ 1962 (a) and § 772.103(1), Florida Statutes, by receiving income from a pattern of racketeering activity which they used and invested in the establishment and op *1358 eration of Boeing.”
— 772.103(4) — 11 cases
Ginsberg v. Lennar Florida Holdings, 645 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). “103(3), Florida Statutes for the operation of a criminal enterprise dedicated to the ongoing theft of the rents if the rents have not been and could not have been stolen by those allegedly doing the stealing.”
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Boeing Co., 314 F. Supp. 2d 1198 (M.D. Fla. 2004). “” § 772.103(2), Fla. Stat. (2003). Criminal activity includes several predicate crimes named in section 772.”
Florida Evergreen Foliage v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 336 F. Supp. 2d 1239 (S.D. Fla. 2004). “The relevant Florida RICO provision makes it unlawful for any person “[ejmployed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity or the collection of an unlawful debt.”
Florida Software Sys., Inc. v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 46 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (M.D. Fla. 1999).
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Boeing Co., 357 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (M.D. Fla. 2005). “§ 1962 (a) and § 772.103(1), Florida Statutes, by receiving income from a pattern of racketeering activity which they used and invested in the establishment and op *1358 eration of Boeing.”
— 772.103(A) — 1 case
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Boeing Co., 314 F. Supp. 2d 1198 (M.D. Fla. 2004). “” § 772.103(2), Fla. Stat. (2003). Criminal activity includes several predicate crimes named in section 772.”
— 772.103(b) — 1 case
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Boeing Co., 314 F. Supp. 2d 1198 (M.D. Fla. 2004). “” § 772.103(2), Fla. Stat. (2003). Criminal activity includes several predicate crimes named in section 772.”
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.

This Florida statute resource is curated by the attorney maintaining this site, a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney (Florida Bar No. 39104). For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.