§842-2 Ownership or operation of business
by certain persons prohibited. It shall be unlawful:
(1) For any person who has received any income
derived, directly or indirectly, from a racketeering activity or through
collection of an unlawful debt, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any
part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in the acquisition of any
interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise.
(2) For any person through a racketeering activity or
through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or
indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise.
(3) For any person employed by or associated with any
enterprise to conduct or participate in the conduct of the affairs of the
enterprise through racketeering activity or collection of an unlawful debt. [L
1972, c 71, pt of §2]
Case Notes
In class action brought against major cigarette
manufacturers, tobacco trade associations, and the industry's public relations
firm, first amended complaint asserted violations of federal RICO statutes;
Hawaii's RICO statute (this section); federal antitrust statutes; Hawaii's
antitrust act, chapter 480; various state common-law torts; and false
advertising under §708-871; defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim granted, where injuries alleged by plaintiffs trust funds in first amended
complaint were not direct; even if remoteness doctrine did not bar claims,
claims failed for other reasons. 52 F. Supp. 2d 1196 (1999).
Under paragraph (3), an "enterprise" must (1) have
a common or shared purpose, (2) be an ongoing organization with continuity of
structure and personnel, and (3) have an ascertainable structure distinct from
that inherent in the conduct of the racketeering activity. 84 H. 56, 929 P.2d
69 (1996).
Definition of "associated with" in paragraph (3)
includes (1) participation in the operation, management or conduct of the
enterprise itself; (2) whether directly or indirectly; and (3) regardless of a
stake or interest in the goals of the enterprise. 84 H. 211, 933 P.2d 48
(1997).
Section does not implicate First Amendment concerns because
it is neither directed at, nor does it regulate or proscribe First Amendment
freedoms, i.e., membership in a political organization or certain beliefs held
by an individual. 84 H. 211, 933 P.2d 48 (1997).
Term "associated with" in paragraph (3) not
unconstitutionally vague under Hawaii constitution. 84 H. 211, 933 P.2d 48
(1997).
Section 701-109(1)(d) prohibits conviction under both
paragraph (2) and §712-1203, as both paragraph (2) and §712-1203 seek to
redress the same conduct--the control of an enterprise involved in criminal
activity. In such case, the specific statute, §712-1203, governs over this
section, the general statute. 88 H. 19, 960 P.2d 1227 (1998).
Where (1) no evidence that defendant and one or both of
brothers shared a common goal or objective, (2) only defendant's reference to
the "big boss" tied defendant to an ongoing organization with a
system of authority directing individuals in furtherance of the alleged group
goals of controlling gambling and drugs, and (3) no evidence of an
ascertainable structure distinct from the alleged act of extortion or that an
ongoing organization existed, evidence insufficient for purposes of paragraph
(3) and the definition of "enterprise". 103 H. 68 (App.), 79 P.3d
686 (2003).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case:
State v. Richie, 960 P.2d 1227 (Haw. 1998).
State v. Richie, 960 P.2d 1227 (Haw. 1998).
· cites it 24× “It shall be unlawful: [[Image here]] (2) For any person through a racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt[ 8 ] to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any inter- ' est in or control of any enterprise[ 9 ] It is clear that Richie was convicted…”
State v. Bates, 933 P.2d 48 (Haw. 1997).
· cites it 37× “The House Judiciary Committee of the Ha-wai'i legislature also indicated that the statute incorporated] applicable provisions of federal law relating to racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations .”
State v. Ontai, 929 P.2d 69 (Haw. 1996).
· cites it 38× “6 The legislative history of HRS § 842-2 provides some guidance. The original act passed by the legislature indicated that the statute was primarily directed against “organized crime”: The Legislature finds that organized crime with its increasing affluence and power resulting…”
State v. Kahapea, 141 P.3d 440 (Haw. 2006).
· cites it 8× “HRS § 842-2 provides in relevant part: "It shall be unlawful: .”
Ryan v. Salisbury, 380 F. Supp. 3d 1031 (D. Haw. 2019).
· cites it 17× “" HRS § 842-8(c) creates a private right of action for "[a]ny person injured in the person's business or property by reason of" a RICO violation.”
State v. Martin, 79 P.3d 686 (Haw. App. 2003).
· cites it 13× “Raffetto presiding, convicting Martin of Count One, Extortion in the First Degree, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-765(l)(a) (1993), 1 and Count Two, Ownership or Operation of Business by Certain Persons Prohibited, HRS § 842-2 (1993), 2 and sentencing him to imprisonment…”
State v. Furutani, 873 P.2d 51 (Haw. 1994).
· cites it 2× “1990), 3 two counts of “ownership/operation of business by certain persons prohibited” (Counts III and V) in violation of HRS § 842-2(1) (1985), one count of theft in the second degree (Count IV) in violation of HRS § 708-881(l)(b) (Supp.”
Keesling v. Beegle, 880 N.E.2d 1202 (Ind. 2008).
· cites it 2× “§ 18-7804 (c) (2007); Haw. Rev.Stat. Ann. § 842-2(3) (2007); N.”
State v. Park., 495 P.3d 392 (Haw. App. 2021).
· cites it 19× “We also hold, however, that the State failed to present evidence that Park "conduct[ed] or participate[d] in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise" within the meaning of HRS § 842-2. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's dismissal of the indictment as to Park, but…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 842-2(1) — 1 case
State v. Furutani, 873 P.2d 51 (Haw. 1994).
“1990), 3 two counts of “ownership/operation of business by certain persons prohibited” (Counts III and V) in violation of HRS § 842-2(1) (1985), one count of theft in the second degree (Count IV) in violation of HRS § 708-881(l)(b) (Supp.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 842-2(2) — 2 cases
State v. Richie, 960 P.2d 1227 (Haw. 1998).
“It shall be unlawful: [[Image here]] (2) For any person through a racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt[ 8 ] to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any inter- ' est in or control of any enterprise[ 9 ] It is clear that Richie was convicted…”
State v. Martin, 79 P.3d 686 (Haw. App. 2003).
“Raffetto presiding, convicting Martin of Count One, Extortion in the First Degree, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-765(l)(a) (1993), 1 and Count Two, Ownership or Operation of Business by Certain Persons Prohibited, HRS § 842-2 (1993), 2 and sentencing him to imprisonment…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 842-2(3) — 9 cases
State v. Bates, 933 P.2d 48 (Haw. 1997).
“The House Judiciary Committee of the Ha-wai'i legislature also indicated that the statute incorporated] applicable provisions of federal law relating to racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations .”
State v. Ontai, 929 P.2d 69 (Haw. 1996).
“6 The legislative history of HRS § 842-2 provides some guidance. The original act passed by the legislature indicated that the statute was primarily directed against “organized crime”: The Legislature finds that organized crime with its increasing affluence and power resulting…”
State v. Kahapea, 141 P.3d 440 (Haw. 2006).
“HRS § 842-2 provides in relevant part: "It shall be unlawful: .”
Ryan v. Salisbury, 380 F. Supp. 3d 1031 (D. Haw. 2019).
“" HRS § 842-8(c) creates a private right of action for "[a]ny person injured in the person's business or property by reason of" a RICO violation.”
Keesling v. Beegle, 880 N.E.2d 1202 (Ind. 2008).
“§ 18-7804 (c) (2007); Haw. Rev.Stat. Ann. § 842-2(3) (2007); N.”
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.