Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 35-45-6-2 (2025)
Corrupt business influence
✓ 2025 Indiana Code: the 2026 session is not included
Sec. 2. A person:
(1) who has knowingly or intentionally received any proceeds directly or indirectly derived from a pattern of racketeering activity, and who uses or invests those proceeds or the proceeds derived from them to acquire an interest in property or to establish or to operate an enterprise;
(2) who through a pattern of racketeering activity, knowingly or intentionally acquires or maintains, either directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of property or an enterprise; or
(3) who is 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 racketeering activity;
commits corrupt business influence, a Level 5 felony.
As added by Acts 1980, P.L.199, SEC.2. Amended by P.L.211-1991, SEC.9; P.L.158-2013, SEC.535.
IC 35-45-7Chapter 7. Loansharking
35-45-7-1Definitions
35-45-7-2Loansharking
35-45-7-3Application of chapter
35-45-7-4Contracts void
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 70
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2023 · leading case: 4447 CORP. v. Goldsmith, 504 N.E.2d 559 (Ind. 1987).
4447 CORP. v. Goldsmith, 504 N.E.2d 559 (Ind. 1987). “As set out in Ind. Code § 35-45-6-2 (a), a person: "(1) who has knowingly or intentionally received any proceeds directly or indirectly derived from a pattern of racketeering activity, and who uses or invests those proceeds or the proceeds derived from them to acquire an…”
Wesleyan Pension Fund, Inc. v. First Albany Corp., 964 F. Supp. 1255 (S.D. Ind. 1997). “Ind.Code § 35-45-6-2. In their motion brief, the Clover Defendants contend that Wesleyan’s Indiana RICO claim must be dismissed because Wesleyan (1) does not properly plead a pattern of racketeering activity, and (2) does not allege a RICO enterprise distinct and separate from…”
Kenny Purvis v. State of Indiana, 87 N.E.3d 1119 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “Ind. Code § 35-45-6-2 (3). 4 . Keeper boxes are plastic security cases containing magnetic strips that set off an alarm if the keeper boxes are not deactivated and removed before exiting the store.”
Keesling v. Beegle, 880 N.E.2d 1202 (Ind. 2008). “Code § 23-2-1-19 (the "Indiana Securities Act") and § 35-45-6-2 (the "Indiana RICO Act" or "Indiana Act"), fraud, conversion, and theft.”
Koger v. State, 513 N.E.2d 1250 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987). “" The federal RICO statute has a provision substantially similar to Ind. Code § 35-45-6-2 (a)(3), the provision under which Koger was convicted.”
Detona Sargent v. State of Ind., 27 N.E.3d 729 (Ind. 2015). “” Ind. Code § 35-45-6-2 (2008). 2 We heard oral argument in Miller with the order on transfer pending.”
Ashonta Kenya Jackson v. State of Indiana, 50 N.E.3d 767 (Ind. 2016). “The State alleged, tracking the language of Indiana Code section 35-45-6-2(2), that Jackson, “through a pattern of racketeering activity, knowingly or intentionally acquired a-direct interest in property: to wit United States Currency from multiple armed robberies.”
Charles Robinson v. State of Indiana, 56 N.E.3d 652 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “” I.C. § 35-45-6-2. In relevant part, the Indiana RICO Act defines “pattern of racketeering activity” as “engaging in at least two (2) incidents of racketeering activity that have the same or similar intent, result, accomplice, victim, or method of commission, or that are…”
Waldon v. State, 829 N.E.2d 168 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “(8)[wlho is 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 racketeering activity commits corrupt business influence.”
Hightower v. State, 866 N.E.2d 356 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “at 35 (abstract of judgment); see also Ind.Code §§ 35-45-6-2, 35-43-4-2, 35-44-1-1, and 35-43-5-2.”
AGS Capital Corp. v. Prod. Action Int'l, LLC, 884 N.E.2d 294 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “See I.C. § 35-45-6-2 (Corrupt Business Influence, a Class C felony).”
Ashonta Kenya Jackson v. State of Indiana, 33 N.E.3d 1173 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “As the majority notes, Indiana Code section 35-45-6-2(2) provides that a person commits corrupt business influence if he, “through a pattern of racketeering activity, knowingly or intentionally acquires or maintains, either directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of…”
Ind. Code § 35-45-6-2(1): 2 cases
Victor Hugo Mesa v. State of Indiana, 5 N.E.3d 488 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
Wesleyan Pension Fund, Inc. v. First Albany Corp., 964 F. Supp. 1255 (S.D. Ind. 1997). “Ind.Code § 35-45-6-2. In their motion brief, the Clover Defendants contend that Wesleyan’s Indiana RICO claim must be dismissed because Wesleyan (1) does not properly plead a pattern of racketeering activity, and (2) does not allege a RICO enterprise distinct and separate from…”
Ind. Code § 35-45-6-2(2): 8 cases
Ashonta Kenya Jackson v. State of Indiana, 50 N.E.3d 767 (Ind. 2016). “The State alleged, tracking the language of Indiana Code section 35-45-6-2(2), that Jackson, “through a pattern of racketeering activity, knowingly or intentionally acquired a-direct interest in property: to wit United States Currency from multiple armed robberies.”
Long v. State, 867 N.E.2d 606 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
Ashonta Kenya Jackson v. State of Indiana, 33 N.E.3d 1173 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “As the majority notes, Indiana Code section 35-45-6-2(2) provides that a person commits corrupt business influence if he, “through a pattern of racketeering activity, knowingly or intentionally acquires or maintains, either directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of…”
Davis v. State, 937 N.E.2d 8 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
Charles Robinson v. State of Indiana, 56 N.E.3d 652 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “” I.C. § 35-45-6-2. In relevant part, the Indiana RICO Act defines “pattern of racketeering activity” as “engaging in at least two (2) incidents of racketeering activity that have the same or similar intent, result, accomplice, victim, or method of commission, or that are…”
Ind. Code § 35-45-6-2(3): 12 cases
Keesling v. Beegle, 880 N.E.2d 1202 (Ind. 2008). “Code § 23-2-1-19 (the "Indiana Securities Act") and § 35-45-6-2 (the "Indiana RICO Act" or "Indiana Act"), fraud, conversion, and theft.”
Kenny Purvis v. State of Indiana, 87 N.E.3d 1119 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “Ind. Code § 35-45-6-2 (3). 4 . Keeper boxes are plastic security cases containing magnetic strips that set off an alarm if the keeper boxes are not deactivated and removed before exiting the store.”
Wesleyan Pension Fund, Inc. v. First Albany Corp., 964 F. Supp. 1255 (S.D. Ind. 1997). “Ind.Code § 35-45-6-2. In their motion brief, the Clover Defendants contend that Wesleyan’s Indiana RICO claim must be dismissed because Wesleyan (1) does not properly plead a pattern of racketeering activity, and (2) does not allege a RICO enterprise distinct and separate from…”
An-Hung Yao v. State of Indiana, 975 N.E.2d 1273 (Ind. 2012).
Hightower v. State, 866 N.E.2d 356 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “at 35 (abstract of judgment); see also Ind.Code §§ 35-45-6-2, 35-43-4-2, 35-44-1-1, and 35-43-5-2.”
Ind. Code § 35-45-6-2(a): 2 cases
Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U.S. 46 (1989).
State v. Sappenfield, 505 N.E.2d 504 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987).
Ind. Code § 35-45-6-2(a)(2): 1 case
Kemp v. State, 887 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
Ind. Code § 35-45-6-2(a)(3): 2 cases
Koger v. State, 513 N.E.2d 1250 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987). “" The federal RICO statute has a provision substantially similar to Ind. Code § 35-45-6-2 (a)(3), the provision under which Koger was convicted.”
Kollar v. State, 556 N.E.2d 936 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990).
Ind. Code § 35-45-6-2(a)(8): 1 case
Kollar v. State, 556 N.E.2d 936 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990).
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.