§842-1 Definitions. As used in this
chapter:
"Enterprise" includes any sole
proprietorship, partnership, corporation, association, and any union or group
of individuals associated for a particular purpose although not a legal entity.
"Organized crime" means any
combination or conspiracy to engage in criminal activity as a significant
source of income or livelihood, or to violate, aid, or abet the violation of
criminal laws relating to prostitution, gambling, loan sharking, drug abuse,
illegal drug distribution, counterfeiting, extortion, labor trafficking,
unlicensed sale of liquor, or corruption of law enforcement officers or other
public officers or employers.
"Person" includes any individual or
entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property and
includes nonresident aliens.
"Racketeering activity" means any act
or threat involving but not limited to murder, kidnapping, gambling, criminal
property damage, robbery, bribery, extortion, labor trafficking, unlicensed
sale of liquor, theft, or prostitution, or any dealing in narcotic or other
dangerous drugs that is chargeable as a crime under state law and punishable by
imprisonment for more than one year.
"Unlawful debt" means a debt incurred
or contracted in an illegal gambling activity or business or which is
unenforceable under state law in whole or in part as to principal or interest
because of the law relating to usury. [L 1972, c 71, pt of §2; am L 1990, c 27,
§2; am L 1991, c 175, §1; am L 2011, c 146, §4; am L 2019, c 15, §4]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case:
State v. Ontai, 929 P.2d 69 (Haw. 1996).
State v. Ontai, 929 P.2d 69 (Haw. 1996).
· cites it 14× “According to the prosecution, the court should have applied the statutory definition found in HRS § 842-1 5 rather than the definition found in United States v.”
State v. Richie, 960 P.2d 1227 (Haw. 1998).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 842-1 (1993) provides in relevant part: "Racketeering activity” means any act or threat involving but not limited to murder, kidnapping, gambling, criminal property damage, robbery, bribery, extortion, theft or prostitution, or any dealing in narcotic or other dangerous…”
Ryan v. Salisbury, 380 F. Supp. 3d 1031 (D. Haw. 2019).
· cites it 6× “HRS § 842-1 [.]"). Therefore, and in light of the differences between 18 U.”
State v. Bates, 933 P.2d 48 (Haw. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Since the term “enterprise” is defined broadly in Haw.Rev.Stat. § 842-1, to include “any group of individuals associated for a particular purpose although not a legal entity,” the Defendant is again notified that the State intends to proceed on the theory that the three named…”
Nakamoto v. Hartley, 758 F. Supp. 1357 (D. Haw. 1991).
· cites it 3× “§§ 842-1, et seq. Roberts and VLBMH argue that plaintiffs’ first (federal RICO), second (SEA), third (Hawaii Securities Act), fifth (Hawaii *1361 antitrust statute), and eighth (Hawaii RICO) claims for relief are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation.”
State v. Park., 495 P.3d 392 (Haw. App. 2021).
· cites it 14× “We distinguish Ontai, which involved an alleged associated-in-fact enterprise; we hold that a limited liability company qualifies as a legal-entity "enterprise" as defined by HRS § 842-1. We also hold, however, that the State failed to present evidence that Park "conduct[ed] or…”
Moore v. MC Architects Inc. (D. Haw. 2025).
· cites it 4× “” HRS § 842-1. A group “associated for a particular purpose although not a legal entity,” id.”
Agena v. Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. (D. Haw. 2020).
· cites it 2× “Nonetheless, Plaintiffs may establish their RICO claims and their fraudulent inducement claims by presenting the same evidence. See Living Designs, 431 F.3d at 361–70 (involving claims of fraudulent inducement under Hawaii law and federal RICO violations based upon alleged…”
Nicol v. Ka'anapali Golf Estates Cmty. Ass'n, Inc. (D. Haw. 2021).
· cites it 2× “” HRS § 842-1. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants engaged in racketeering activity under both state and federal law by committing “extortion” in violation of HRS § 707-764.”
Moore (D. Haw. 2026).
· cites it 2× “Existence of an enterprise The FAC alleges that Defendants were part of an “association-in-fact” enterprise.”
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.