Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 16-14-2 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 16 CRIMES AND OFFENSES

Section 14. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, 16-14-1 through 16-14-15.

ARTICLE 5 SANCTIONS AGAINST LICENSED PERSONS FOR OFFENSES INVOLVING CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES OR MARIJUANA

16-14-2. Findings and intent of General Assembly.

  1. The General Assembly finds that a severe problem is posed in this state by the increasing sophistication of various criminal elements and the increasing extent to which the state and its citizens are harmed as a result of the activities of these elements.
  2. The General Assembly declares that the intent of this chapter is to impose sanctions against those who violate this chapter and to provide compensation to persons injured or aggrieved by such violations. It is not the intent of the General Assembly that isolated incidents of misdemeanor conduct or acts of civil disobedience be prosecuted under this chapter. It is the intent of the General Assembly, however, that this chapter apply to an interrelated pattern of criminal activity motivated by or the effect of which is pecuniary gain or economic or physical threat or injury. This chapter shall be liberally construed to effectuate the remedial purposes embodied in its operative provisions.

(Code 1933, § 26-3401, enacted by Ga. L. 1980, p. 405, § 1; Ga. L. 1997, p. 672, § 1; Ga. L. 2015, p. 693, § 2-25/HB 233.)

Editor's notes.

- Ga. L. 1997, p. 672, § 2, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the Act shall have retroactive application to the fullest extent permitted by the Constitutions of Georgia and the United States.

Ga. L. 2015, p. 693, § 4-1/HB 233, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "This Act shall become effective on July 1, 2015, and shall apply to seizures of property for forfeiture that occur on or after that date. Any such seizure that occurs before July 1, 2015, shall be governed by the statute in effect at the time of such seizure."

Law reviews.

- For article, "A Comprehensive Analysis of Georgia RICO," see 9 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 537 (1993). For article commenting on the 1997 amendment of this Code section, see 14 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 90 (1997). For article on the 2015 amendment of this Code section, see 32 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 1 (2015).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Not element of civil cause of action.

- Expression of legislative purpose in enacting O.C.G.A. Ch. 14, T. 16 is not an element of a civil cause of action under the Georgia RICO Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-1 et seq. State v. Shearson Lehman Bros., 188 Ga. App. 120, 372 S.E.2d 276 (1988).

O.C.G.A. Ch. 14, T. 16 requires the plaintiff to allege an organized crime nexus. Georgia Gulf Corp. v. Ward, 701 F. Supp. 1556 (N.D. Ga. 1987).

Allegations of enterprise and racketeering not necessary.

- Plaintiff's failure to separately allege that defendants were engaged in an "enterprise" as well as a pattern of racketeering did not preclude issuance of a preliminary injunction against the defendants. Cotton, Inc. v. Phil-Dan Trucking, Inc., 270 Ga. 95, 507 S.E.2d 730 (1998).

Nexus between organized crime and the economy.

- Plaintiff's failure to allege a nexus between organized crime and the economy is of no consequence. Cotton, Inc. v. Phil-Dan Trucking, Inc., 270 Ga. 95, 507 S.E.2d 730 (1998).

Securing debt.

- Because the General Assembly did not intend to proscribe a bank's attempts to secure payment of a debt through legal means, the trial court did not err in finding that the debtors failed to offer evidence of a pattern of racketeering to support a RICO claim. All Fleet Refinishing, Inc. v. W. Ga. Nat'l Bank, 280 Ga. App. 676, 634 S.E.2d 802 (2006).

Intent to cause harm.

- Evidence sufficient to show a racketeer influenced and corrupt organization violation necessarily also demonstrates the "intent to cause harm" that removes the cap to a punitive damage award. Speir v. Krieger, 235 Ga. App. 392, 509 S.E.2d 684 (1998).

Credit company to which retail installment contract assigned.

- Credit company to which automobile dealer assigned retail installment contract was not a member of the "organized criminal elements" at which the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act is aimed. Doxie v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 603 F. Supp. 624 (S.D. Ga. 1984).

Repeated sale of non-existent insurance.

- While the illegal sale of insurance is not in and of itself a basis for a racketeer influenced and corrupt organization (RICO) action absent further evidence of fraud rising to the level of theft by deception, the repeated sale to unsuspecting consumers of non-existent insurance was the very essence of such fraud and was exactly the type of criminally fraudulent activity masquerading as "business" that RICO was designed to address. Speir v. Krieger, 235 Ga. App. 392, 509 S.E.2d 684 (1998).

Preponderance of evidence standard in civil cases.

- In a civil action under the Georgia RICO Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-1 et seq., given the similarities in the purpose and language of the federal and Georgia RICO statutes, together with the General Assembly's mandate to liberally construe the Act to effectuate its remedial purposes, under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-2(b), the applicable standard of proof in state civil RICO actions was held to be a preponderance of the evidence; thus, the Supreme Court of Georgia overruled Simpson Consulting, Inc. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 227 Ga. App. 648 (490 S.E.2d 184) (1997), and those other cases holding to the contrary, specifically, Blanton v. Bank of America, 256 Ga. App. 103 (2002), In re Copelan, 250 Ga. App. 856 (2001), and Tronitec, Inc. v. Shealy, 249 Ga. App. 442 (2001). Williams Gen. Corp. v. Stone, 279 Ga. 428, 614 S.E.2d 758 (2005).

Cited in Waller v. State, 251 Ga. 124, 303 S.E.2d 437 (1983); Five Star Partners v. Vincent Netherlands Properties, 169 Bankr. 994 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1994); Security Life Ins. Co. v. Clark, 229 Ga. App. 593, 494 S.E.2d 388 (1997); Roberts v. State, 344 Ga. App. 324, 810 S.E.2d 169 (2018); Ga. Lottery Corp. v. Tabletop Media, LLC, 346 Ga. App. 498, 816 S.E.2d 438 (2018).

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 16-14-2

Total Results: 9  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Chancey v. State, 349 S.E.2d 717 (Ga. 1986).

Cited 154 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 13, 1986 | 256 Ga. 415

...posed in this state by the increasing organization among certain criminal elements and the increasing extent to which criminal activities and funds acquired as a result of criminal activity are being directed to and against the legitimate economy of the state." OCGA § 16-14-2 (a). Consequently, the expressed intent of the Georgia statute "is to impose sanctions against this subversion of the economy by organized criminal elements and to provide compensation to private persons injured thereby. OCGA § 16-14-2 (b). However, § 16-14-2 (b) goes on to state that "[i]t is not the intent of the General Assembly that isolated incidents of misdemeanor conduct be prosecuted under this chapter but only an interrelated pattern of criminal activity, the motive or effect of which is to derive pecuniary gain....
Copy

Waller v. State, 303 S.E.2d 437 (Ga. 1983).

Cited 47 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 1, 1983 | 251 Ga. 124

...In view of the fact that this prosecution is for violations of the statute aimed at organized crime, it is reasonable to find that organized efforts of law enforcement agencies are essential and necessary. This finding is supported by the clear language of OCGA § 16-14-2 (b) (Code Ann....
Copy

Williams Gen. Corp. v. Stone, 614 S.E.2d 758 (Ga. 2005).

Cited 40 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 16, 2005 | 279 Ga. 428, 2005 Fulton County D. Rep. 1850

...The Georgia RICO Act was enacted by the Georgia legislature to impose criminal penalties against those engaged in an "interrelated pattern of criminal activity motivated by or the effect of which is pecuniary gain or economic or physical threat or injury," OCGA § 16-14-2(b), see OCGA § 16-14-5, and civil remedies to compensate those injured by reason of such acts....
...scious indifference to the consequences, are to be proven by the standard of proof of "clear and convincing" evidence in order to penalize, punish, or deter such tortious conduct. [Cits.] Since the intent of the General Assembly as expressed in OCGA § 16-14-2(b) is to impose sanctions and to compensate private individuals who have been injured, then the purposes of treble damages and punitive damages are substantially the same, thereby requiring the same standard of proof, i.e., "clear and convincing" evidence....
...442(6), 547 S.E.2d 749 (2001) (applying clear and convincing standard of proof). This interpretation, however, is at odds with the decisions of this Court recognizing that the purpose of the RICO Act is to provide compensation to private persons injured or aggrieved by reason of any RICO violation. OCGA § 16-14-2(b); Dee v....
...is remedial, rather than punitive. Given the similarities in the purpose and language of the federal and Georgia RICO statutes, together with the General Assembly's mandate to liberally construe the Act to effectuate its remedial purposes, see OCGA § 16-14-2(b), we hold the applicable standard of proof in state civil RICO actions to be a preponderance of the evidence....
Copy

Clark v. Sec. Life Ins. Co. of Am., 509 S.E.2d 602 (Ga. 1998).

Cited 29 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 26, 1998 | 270 Ga. 165

...Shepherd Constr. Co., 248 Ga. 1, 5, 281 S.E.2d 151, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1055, 102 S.Ct. 601, 70 L.Ed.2d 591 (1981). Compare OCGA § 7-1-845 (expressly imposing criminal liability on corporations for certain crimes relating to financial institutions). [12] OCGA § 16-14-2(b)....
Copy

Cisco v. State, 680 S.E.2d 831 (Ga. 2009).

Cited 22 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 15, 2009 | 285 Ga. 656, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 2024, 58 A.L.R. 6th 809

...ose of the in personam RICO forfeiture proceeding is to target a property owner to whom the innocent-owner defense does not apply, i.e., an owner who has engaged in "an interrelated pattern of criminal activity motivated by ... pecuniary gain." OCGA § 16-14-2(b)....
Copy

Dee v. Sweet, 489 S.E.2d 823 (Ga. 1997).

Cited 17 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 15, 1997 | 268 Ga. 346, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 3398

...841(1), 285 S.E.2d 697 (1982) (due process analysis). The purpose of the Georgia RICO Act is "to impose sanctions against [the] subversion of the economy by organized criminal elements and to provide compensation to private persons injured thereby." OCGA § 16-14-2(b)....
...City of Houston, 906 F.2d 1068, 1085-1086 (5th Cir.1990). The Georgia RICO Act provides that it shall be construed to further the intent of the Legislature, namely, to provide compensation to private persons injured by reason of any RICO violation. OCGA § 16-14-2(b)....
Copy

White v. State, 903 S.E.2d 891 (Ga. 2024).

Cited 14 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 27, 2024 | 319 Ga. 367

...Georgia’s RICO statute is very broad; it allows the State to bring in evidence of all sorts of other crimes during a RICO prosecution. That’s of necessity; the statute was designed to combat “the increasing sophistication of various criminal elements,” OCGA § 16-14-2 (a), and the kind of sophisticated conspiracies it was designed to reach are not susceptible to easy categorization....
...The intent of Georgia’s RICO statute is to address “the increasing sophistication of various criminal elements and the increasing extent to which the state and its citizens are harmed as a result of the activities of these elements.” OCGA § 16-14-2 (a)....
Copy

Williams Gen. Corp. v. Stone, 632 S.E.2d 376 (Ga. 2006).

Cited 12 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 12, 2006 | 280 Ga. 631, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 1837

...egislatively defined words shall be given their specified meaning. See OCGA § 1-3-2. Further, the General Assembly has expressly stated its intent that the Georgia RICO Act be "liberally construed" in order to effectuate its remedial purposes. OCGA § 16-14-2(b)....
Copy

Cotton, Inc. v. Phil-Dan Trucking, Inc., 507 S.E.2d 730 (Ga. 1998).

Cited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 2, 1998 | 270 Ga. 95, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 3679

...Georgia RICO act. Cotton asserts the court erred in entering the preliminary injunction because Phil-Dan did not also allege that defendants were engaged in an organized criminal attempt "to take over the legitimate economy of this state." See OCGA § 16-14-2....