Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 34-24-2-2 (2026)

Action for forfeiture of property incident to corrupt business influence

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Sec. 2. (a) The prosecuting attorney in a county in which any of the property is located may bring an action for the forfeiture of any property:

(1) used in the course of;

(2) intended for use in the course of;

(3) derived from; or

(4) realized through;

conduct in violation of IC 35-45-6-2.

(b) The inspector general may bring an action for forfeiture in accordance with IC 4-2-7-6 in a county where property that is:

(1) derived from; or

(2) realized through;

misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance, misappropriation, fraud, or other misconduct that has resulted in a financial loss to the state is located.

(c) An action for forfeiture may be brought in any circuit or superior court in a county in which any of the property is located.

(d) Upon a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that:

(1) property described in subsection (a) was used in the course of, intended for use in the course of, derived from, or realized through conduct in violation of IC 35-45-6-2; or

(2) property described in subsection (b) was derived from or realized through conduct described in subsection (b);

the court shall, subject to the right, title, or interest of record of any other party in the property determined under section 4 of this chapter, order the property forfeited to the state and specify the manner of disposition of the property, including the manner of disposition if the property is not transferable for value.

(e) The court shall order forfeitures and dispositions under this section:

(1) with due provision for the rights of innocent persons; and

(2) as provided under section 4 of this chapter.

[Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 34-4-30.5-3(a).]

As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.19. Amended by P.L.222-2005, SEC.40.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1999–2019 · leading case: Mendenhall v. City of Indianapolis, 717 N.E.2d 1218 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mendenhall v. City of Indianapolis, 717 N.E.2d 1218 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “See Ind.Code § 34-24-2-2(a). Goldsmith sought seizure of the property subject to forfeiture through a separate petition.”

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 4× “§ 34-24-2-1 et seq and Indiana's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute, I.C. § 34-24-2-2 et seq ; I.C. § 35-45-6-2 .”

State of Ind., Consol. City of Indianapolis/Marion Co. v. El Rodeo 11, Llc., 25 N.E.3d 781 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “Also, Indiana Code section 34-24-2-2 allows “[t]he prosecuting attorney in a county in which any of the property is located [to] bring an action for the forfeiture of any property: (1) used in the course of; (2) intended for use in the course of; (3) derived from; or (4)…”

$3,941 in US Currency, &, Deonta Anderson, Korjonta Anderson, & Beonica Johnson-Grant v. Rodney Cummings, Prosecuting Attorney for the 50th Jud. Circuit for the State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “Ind. Code § 34-24-2-2 (2005). The statutory definition of corrupt business influence refers to a person employed by or associated with an enterprise and who knowingly or intentionally conducts or otherwise participates in the activities of that enterprise through a pattern of…”

— Ind. Code § 34-24-2-2(a) — 2 cases

Mendenhall v. City of Indianapolis, 717 N.E.2d 1218 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “See Ind.Code § 34-24-2-2(a). Goldsmith sought seizure of the property subject to forfeiture through a separate petition.”

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). “§ 34-24-2-1 et seq and Indiana's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute, I.C. § 34-24-2-2 et seq ; I.C. § 35-45-6-2 .”

— Ind. Code § 34-24-2-2(c)(l) — 1 case

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.