Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 34-24-2-1 (2026)

Injunctive relief from corrupt business influence; action by prosecuting attorney

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 1. The prosecuting attorney in a county in which the violation occurs may bring an action under this section to enjoin a violation of IC 35-45-6-2 (corrupt business influence). An action under this section may be brought in any circuit or superior court in a county in which the violation occurs. If the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation of IC 35-45-6-2 has occurred, the court may:

(1) order a defendant to divest the defendant of any interest in any enterprise or property;

(2) impose reasonable restrictions upon the future activities or investments of a defendant, including prohibiting a defendant from engaging in the same type of endeavor as the enterprise in which the defendant was engaged in violation of IC 35-45-6-2;

(3) order the dissolution or reorganization of any enterprise;

(4) order the suspension or revocation of a license, permit, or prior approval granted to any enterprise by any agency of the state;

(5) order the forfeiture of the charter of a corporation organized under the laws of Indiana, or the revocation of a certificate authorizing a foreign corporation to conduct business within the state, upon finding that:

(A) the board of directors or a managerial agent acting on behalf of the corporation, in conducting the affairs of the corporation, has authorized or engaged in conduct in violation of IC 35-45-6-2; and

(B) for the prevention of future criminal activity, the public interest requires the charter of the corporation be forfeited and the corporation dissolved or the certificate revoked; and

(6) make any other order or judgment that the court considers appropriate.

In any order or judgment made by the court under this section, the judge shall make due provision for the rights of innocent persons, including a person having any rights, title, or interest of record in any of the property.

[Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 34-4-30.5-2.]

As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.19.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: Horn v. Hendrickson, 824 N.E.2d 690 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Horn v. Hendrickson, 824 N.E.2d 690 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “[3] Indiana Code Section 34-24-2-1 provides in relevant part: (a) As used in this section, "child" means an unmarried individual without dependents who is: (1) less than twenty (20) years of age; or (2) less than twenty-three (23) years of age and is enrolled in an institution…”

Mendenhall v. City of Indianapolis, 717 N.E.2d 1218 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “5-1 to -7 (now codified at Ind.Code §§ 34-24-2-1 to -8). The complaint sought forfeiture of all real and personal property “used in the course of, intended for use in the course of, derived from, or realized through” the defendants’ racketeering activity.”

Robert R. Coulter, III & Kerri E. Coulter v. Philip J. Caviness, Rush Cnty. Prosecutor, on behalf of State of Indiana, 128 N.E.3d 541 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 3× “Indiana's RICO Statute [15] In his Complaint, Caviness alleged that the Coulter's property was subject to *546 forfeiture under both the civil forfeiture statute, I.C. § 34-24-2-1 et seq and Indiana's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute, I.”

Economan v. Cockrell (N.D. Ind. 2024). · cites it 7× “Indiana Code § 34-24-2-1 et. seq. and the Fourteenth Amendment Plaintiffs allege Indiana’s Civil Forfeiture Statute, I.”

Economan v. Cockrell (N.D. Ind. 2020). · cites it 6× “2 Relevant to his civil conspiracy claim, Economan alleges that “Defendants conspired and acted in concert to do whatever was necessary, lawful or not, to i) cause the arrest, 4 asserts that Indiana Code § 34-24-2-1 et seq. [v]iolates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United…”

Aufderheide v. Ormiston (S.D. Ind. 2025). · cites it 2× “Ormiston") alleging various claims against her, including one under the Indiana Crime Victim's Relief Act, Ind. Code § 34-24-2-1 ("ICVRA"), emanating from an alleged violation of Indiana's Interference with Custody statute, Ind.”

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.