Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 706A.2 (2026)

Violations

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. Specified unlawful activity influenced enterprises. a. It is unlawful for any person who has knowingly received any proceeds of specified unlawful activity to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such proceeds in the acquisition of any interest in any enterprise or any real property, or in the establishment or operation of any enterprise. b. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise or real property through specified unlawful activity. c. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly conduct the affairs of any enterprise through specified unlawful activity or to knowingly participate, directly or indirectly, in any enterprise that the person knows is being conducted through specified unlawful activity. d. It is unlawful for any person to conspire or attempt to violate or to solicit or facilitate the violations of the provisions of paragraph “a”, “b”, or “c”. 2. Facilitation of a criminal network. It is unlawful for a person acting with knowledge of the financial goals and criminal objectives of a criminal network to knowingly facilitate criminal objectives of the network by doing any of the following: a. Engaging in violence or intimidation or inciting or inducing another to engage in violence or intimidation. b. Inducing or attempting to induce a person believed to have been called or who may be called as a witness to unlawfully withhold any testimony, testify falsely, or absent themselves from any official proceeding to which the potential witness has been legally summoned. c. Attempting by means of bribery, misrepresentation, intimidation, or force to obstruct,

Tue Dec 09 21:56:44 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 706A (17, 0) §706A.2, ONGOING CRIMINAL CONDUCT 2\n\ndelay, or prevent the communication of information or testimony relating to a violation of any criminal statute to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor, grand jury, or petit jury. d. Injuring or damaging another person’s body or property because that person or any other person gave information or testimony to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor, or grand jury. e. Attempting to suppress by an act of concealment, alteration, or destruction any physical evidence that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution, or conviction of any person. f. Making any property available to a member of the criminal network. g. Making any service other than legal services available to a member of the criminal network. h. Inducing or committing any act or omission by a public servant in violation of the public servant’s official duty. i. Obtaining any benefit for a member of a criminal network by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representation, promises, or material omissions. j. Making a false sworn statement regarding a material issue, believing it to be false, or making any statement, believing it to be false, regarding a material issue to a public servant in connection with an application for any benefit, privilege, or license, or in connection with any official investigation or proceeding. 3. Money laundering. It is unlawful for a person to commit money laundering in violation of chapter 706B. 4. Acts of specified unlawful activity. It is unlawful for a person to commit specified unlawful activity as defined in section 706A.1. 5. Negligent empowerment of specified unlawful activity. a. It is unlawful for a person to negligently allow property owned or controlled by the person or services provided by the person, other than legal services, to be used to facilitate specified unlawful activity, whether by entrustment, loan, rent, lease, bailment, or otherwise. b. Damages for negligent empowerment of specified unlawful activity shall include all reasonably foreseeable damages proximately caused by the specified unlawful activity, including, in a case brought or intervened in by the state, the costs of investigation and criminal and civil litigation of the specified unlawful activity incurred by the government for the prosecution and defense of any person involved in the specified unlawful activity, and the imprisonment, probation, parole, or other expense reasonably necessary to detain, punish, and rehabilitate any person found guilty of the specified unlawful activity, except for the following: (1) If the person empowering the specified unlawful activity acted only negligently and was without knowledge of the nature of the activity and could not reasonably have known of the unlawful nature of the activity or that it was likely to occur, damages shall be limited to the greater of the following: (a) The cost of the investigation and litigation of the person’s own conduct plus the value of the property or service involved as of the time of its use to facilitate the specified unlawful activity. (b) All reasonably foreseeable damages to any person, except any person responsible for the specified unlawful activity, and to the general economy and welfare of the state proximately caused by the person’s own conduct. (2) If the property facilitating the specified unlawful activity was taken from the possession or control of the person without that person’s knowledge and against that person’s will in violation of the criminal law, damages shall be limited to reasonably foreseeable damages to any person, except persons responsible for the taking or the specified unlawful activity, and to the general economy and welfare of the state proximately caused by the person’s negligence, if any, in failing to prevent its taking. (3) If the person was aware of the possibility that the property or service would be used to facilitate some form of specified unlawful activity and acted to prevent the unlawful use, damages shall be limited to reasonably foreseeable damages to any person, except any person responsible for the specified unlawful activity, and to the general economy and welfare of\n\nTue Dec 09 21:56:44 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 706A (17, 0) 3 ONGOING CRIMINAL CONDUCT, §706A.3\n\nthe state proximately caused by the person’s failure, if any, to act reasonably to prevent the unlawful use. (4) The plaintiff shall carry the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the specified unlawful activity occurred and was facilitated by the property or services. The defendant shall have the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence as to circumstances constituting lack of negligence and on the limitations on damages in this subsection. 96 Acts, ch 1133, §27; 98 Acts, ch 1074, §33 Referred to in §706A.3, 706A.4

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 31 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: Westco Agronomy Co. v. Wollesen, 909 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Westco Agronomy Co. v. Wollesen, 909 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2017). · cites it 73× “They also filed counterclaims against Westco for breach of contract, fraud, negligent retention, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of Iowa Code section 706A.2(1)( a ) and section 706A.2(5).”

Brown Ex Rel. Rhiner v. Kerkhoff, 504 F. Supp. 2d 464 (S.D. Iowa 2007). · cites it 26× “” A variety of words in section 706A.2 have special meanings, defined by section 706A.”

State v. Olsen, 618 N.W.2d 346 (Iowa 2000). · cites it 31× “See Iowa Code § 706A.2. It also creates civil remedies similar to the model act, see id.”

State v. Banes, 910 N.W.2d 634 (Iowa Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Iowa Code section 706A.2(4) makes in "unlawful for a person to commit specified unlawful activity.”

State v. Reed, 618 N.W.2d 327 (Iowa 2000). · cites it 6× “401(1)(d); ongoing criminal conduct through specified unlawful activity, in violation of Iowa Code sections 706A.2(4) and 706A.4 (1997); two counts of failure to affix a tax stamp for marijuana and cocaine, in violation of Iowa Code section 453B.”

State of Iowa v. Clifford Lynn McNeal, 867 N.W.2d 91 (Iowa 2015). · cites it 2× “” McNeal responded, “What do you know about — I mean, what are you talking about?” On April 9, 2012, the State filed a trial information charging McNeal with one count of ongoing criminal conduct in violation of Iowa Code section 706A.2(4), one count of theft in the first degree…”

Walker Mfg., Inc. v. Hoffmann, Inc., 261 F. Supp. 2d 1054 (N.D. Iowa 2003). · cites it 4× “§ 1962 (c), and the Iowa Ongoing Criminal Conduct Act (IOCCA), Iowa Code § 706A.2(l)(c) against defendants Hoffmann, Emmert, Sixt, and J.”

State of Iowa v. Demetrius S. Rimmer v. Rona Murphy v. Melonicka Thomas, 877 N.W.2d 652 (Iowa 2016). “§ 706A.2(4) (criminalizing “specified unlawful activity”).”

Walker Mfg., Inc. v. Hoffmann, Inc., 220 F. Supp. 2d 1024 (N.D. Iowa 2002). · cites it 2× “, specifically Iowa Code § 706A.2(l)(c); Count II (brought against Hoffmann), under section 43(a) of the Lanham TradeMark Act of 1946 (“Lanham Act”), codified at 15 U.”

Walker Mfg., Inc. v. Hoffmann, Inc., 157 F. Supp. 2d 1012 (N.D. Iowa 2001). · cites it 7× “§ 1962 (c), and the Iowa Ongoing Criminal Conduct Act (IOCCA), § 706A.2(l)(c) of the Iowa Code (IC). Because the court finds that the plaintiff cannot establish the continuity element required under RICO and IC § 706A.”

Westco Agronomy Co., Llc., Plaintiff-Counterclaim defendant-appellant/cross-appellee v. William S. Wollesen A/K/A Bill Wollesen Kristi J. Wollesen William S. & Kristi J. Wollesen Revocable Trust John W. Wollesen Iowa Plains Farms & Chad A. Hartzler, Iowa Plains Farms, Counterclaim Plaintiff-Third-Party plaintiff/cross-appellant v. West Cent. Coop., Third-Party defendant-appellant/cross-appellee. (Iowa Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 18× “Motion for New Trial – Section 706A.2 jury instruction IPF’s claim for ongoing unlawful conduct based on the knowing receipt of proceeds was submitted to the jury.”

Westco Agronomy Co., LLC v. William S. Wollesen a/k/a Bill Wollesen, Kristi J. Wollesen, William S. & Kristi J. Wollesen Revocable Trust, John W. Wollesen, Iowa Plains Farms & Chad A. Hartzler (Iowa 2017). · cites it 18× “Motion for New Trial – Section 706A.2 jury instruction IPF’s claim for ongoing unlawful conduct based on the knowing receipt of proceeds was submitted to the jury.”

Show all 31 citing cases →

— Iowa Code § 706A.2(1) — 7 cases

Westco Agronomy Co. v. Wollesen, 909 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2017). “They also filed counterclaims against Westco for breach of contract, fraud, negligent retention, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of Iowa Code section 706A.2(1)( a ) and section 706A.2(5).”

Brown Ex Rel. Rhiner v. Kerkhoff, 504 F. Supp. 2d 464 (S.D. Iowa 2007). “” A variety of words in section 706A.2 have special meanings, defined by section 706A.”

State v. Olsen, 618 N.W.2d 346 (Iowa 2000). “See Iowa Code § 706A.2. It also creates civil remedies similar to the model act, see id.”

State of Iowa v. Joseph Scott Waigand (Iowa Ct. App. 2020).

State of Iowa v. Jordan McKim Crawford (Iowa Ct. App. 2021).

— Iowa Code § 706A.2(1)(a) — 2 cases

Westco Agronomy Co., Llc., Plaintiff-Counterclaim defendant-appellant/cross-appellee v. William S. Wollesen A/K/A Bill Wollesen Kristi J. Wollesen William S. & Kristi J. Wollesen Revocable Trust John W. Wollesen Iowa Plains Farms & Chad A. Hartzler, Iowa Plains Farms, Counterclaim Plaintiff-Third-Party plaintiff/cross-appellant v. West Cent. Coop., Third-Party defendant-appellant/cross-appellee. (Iowa Ct. App. 2016). “Motion for New Trial – Section 706A.2 jury instruction IPF’s claim for ongoing unlawful conduct based on the knowing receipt of proceeds was submitted to the jury.”

Westco Agronomy Co., LLC v. William S. Wollesen a/k/a Bill Wollesen, Kristi J. Wollesen, William S. & Kristi J. Wollesen Revocable Trust, John W. Wollesen, Iowa Plains Farms & Chad A. Hartzler (Iowa 2017). “Motion for New Trial – Section 706A.2 jury instruction IPF’s claim for ongoing unlawful conduct based on the knowing receipt of proceeds was submitted to the jury.”

— Iowa Code § 706A.2(1)(c) — 1 case

State of Iowa v. Jordan McKim Crawford (Iowa Ct. App. 2021).

— Iowa Code § 706A.2(1)(d) — 2 cases

Wendell K. Harrington, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa (Iowa Ct. App. 2016).

State of Iowa v. Jordan McKim Crawford (Iowa 2022).

— Iowa Code § 706A.2(2) — 2 cases

Brown Ex Rel. Rhiner v. Kerkhoff, 504 F. Supp. 2d 464 (S.D. Iowa 2007). “” A variety of words in section 706A.2 have special meanings, defined by section 706A.”

State v. Olsen, 618 N.W.2d 346 (Iowa 2000). “See Iowa Code § 706A.2. It also creates civil remedies similar to the model act, see id.”

— Iowa Code § 706A.2(2)(f) — 1 case

Brown Ex Rel. Rhiner v. Kerkhoff, 504 F. Supp. 2d 464 (S.D. Iowa 2007). “” A variety of words in section 706A.2 have special meanings, defined by section 706A.”

— Iowa Code § 706A.2(4) — 18 cases

State v. Olsen, 618 N.W.2d 346 (Iowa 2000). “See Iowa Code § 706A.2. It also creates civil remedies similar to the model act, see id.”

State v. Banes, 910 N.W.2d 634 (Iowa Ct. App. 2018). “Iowa Code section 706A.2(4) makes in "unlawful for a person to commit specified unlawful activity.”

State v. Reed, 618 N.W.2d 327 (Iowa 2000). “401(1)(d); ongoing criminal conduct through specified unlawful activity, in violation of Iowa Code sections 706A.2(4) and 706A.4 (1997); two counts of failure to affix a tax stamp for marijuana and cocaine, in violation of Iowa Code section 453B.”

State of Iowa v. Clifford Lynn McNeal, 867 N.W.2d 91 (Iowa 2015). “” McNeal responded, “What do you know about — I mean, what are you talking about?” On April 9, 2012, the State filed a trial information charging McNeal with one count of ongoing criminal conduct in violation of Iowa Code section 706A.2(4), one count of theft in the first degree…”

State of Iowa v. Demetrius S. Rimmer v. Rona Murphy v. Melonicka Thomas, 877 N.W.2d 652 (Iowa 2016). “§ 706A.2(4) (criminalizing “specified unlawful activity”).”

— Iowa Code § 706A.2(5) — 1 case

— Iowa Code § 706A.2(5)(b)(4) — 2 cases

Westco Agronomy Co., Llc., Plaintiff-Counterclaim defendant-appellant/cross-appellee v. William S. Wollesen A/K/A Bill Wollesen Kristi J. Wollesen William S. & Kristi J. Wollesen Revocable Trust John W. Wollesen Iowa Plains Farms & Chad A. Hartzler, Iowa Plains Farms, Counterclaim Plaintiff-Third-Party plaintiff/cross-appellant v. West Cent. Coop., Third-Party defendant-appellant/cross-appellee. (Iowa Ct. App. 2016). “Motion for New Trial – Section 706A.2 jury instruction IPF’s claim for ongoing unlawful conduct based on the knowing receipt of proceeds was submitted to the jury.”

Westco Agronomy Co., LLC v. William S. Wollesen a/k/a Bill Wollesen, Kristi J. Wollesen, William S. & Kristi J. Wollesen Revocable Trust, John W. Wollesen, Iowa Plains Farms & Chad A. Hartzler (Iowa 2017). “Motion for New Trial – Section 706A.2 jury instruction IPF’s claim for ongoing unlawful conduct based on the knowing receipt of proceeds was submitted to the jury.”

— Iowa Code § 706A.2(l) — 1 case

Brown Ex Rel. Rhiner v. Kerkhoff, 504 F. Supp. 2d 464 (S.D. Iowa 2007). “” A variety of words in section 706A.2 have special meanings, defined by section 706A.”

— Iowa Code § 706A.2(l)(a) — 1 case

Brown Ex Rel. Rhiner v. Kerkhoff, 504 F. Supp. 2d 464 (S.D. Iowa 2007). “” A variety of words in section 706A.2 have special meanings, defined by section 706A.”

— Iowa Code § 706A.2(l)(c) — 3 cases

Walker Mfg., Inc. v. Hoffmann, Inc., 261 F. Supp. 2d 1054 (N.D. Iowa 2003). “§ 1962 (c), and the Iowa Ongoing Criminal Conduct Act (IOCCA), Iowa Code § 706A.2(l)(c) against defendants Hoffmann, Emmert, Sixt, and J.”

Walker Mfg., Inc. v. Hoffmann, Inc., 220 F. Supp. 2d 1024 (N.D. Iowa 2002). “, specifically Iowa Code § 706A.2(l)(c); Count II (brought against Hoffmann), under section 43(a) of the Lanham TradeMark Act of 1946 (“Lanham Act”), codified at 15 U.”

Walker Mfg., Inc. v. Hoffmann, Inc., 157 F. Supp. 2d 1012 (N.D. Iowa 2001). “§ 1962 (c), and the Iowa Ongoing Criminal Conduct Act (IOCCA), § 706A.2(l)(c) of the Iowa Code (IC). Because the court finds that the plaintiff cannot establish the continuity element required under RICO and IC § 706A.”

— Iowa Code § 706A.2(l)(d) — 1 case

Brown Ex Rel. Rhiner v. Kerkhoff, 504 F. Supp. 2d 464 (S.D. Iowa 2007). “” A variety of words in section 706A.2 have special meanings, defined by section 706A.”

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.