THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE
Act 328 of 1931
750.159f Definitions generally.
Sec. 159f.
As used in this chapter:
(a) "Enterprise" includes an individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, trust, union, association, governmental unit, or other legal entity or a group of persons associated in fact although not a legal entity. Enterprise includes illicit as well as licit enterprises.
(b) "Instrumentality" means an interest, real or personal property, or other thing of value, the use of which contributes directly and materially to the commission of an offense included in the definition of racketeering.
(c) "Pattern of racketeering activity" means not less than 2 incidents of racketeering to which all of the following characteristics apply:
(i) The incidents have the same or a substantially similar purpose, result, participant, victim, or method of commission, or are otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated acts.
(ii) The incidents amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity.
(iii) At least 1 of the incidents occurred within this state on or after the effective date of the amendatory act that added this section, and the last of the incidents occurred within 10 years after the commission of any prior incident, excluding any period of imprisonment served by a person engaging in the racketeering activity.
(d) "Person" means an individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, cooperative, association, corporation, limited liability company, personal representative, receiver, trustee, assignee, or other legal or illegal entity.
(e) "Proceeds" means any real, personal, or intangible property obtained through the commission of an offense included in the definition of racketeering, including any appreciation in the value of the property.
(f) "Prosecuting agency" means the attorney general of this state, or his or her designee, or the prosecuting attorney of a county, or his or her designee.
History: Add. 1995, Act 187, Eff. Apr. 1, 1996
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
24
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case:
People v. Martin, 721 N.W.2d 815 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
People v. Martin, 721 N.W.2d 815 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 6× “[MCL 750.159f(a).] At trial, witnesses testified that defendant managed or was employed at Legg’s Lounge.”
People v. Gonzalez, 663 N.W.2d 499 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “" MCL 750.159f(a) defines "enterprise" as "an individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, trust, union, association, governmental unit, or other legal entity or a group or persons associated in fact although not a legal entity.”
People v. Raisbeck, 882 N.W.2d 161 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 5× “159i(l), as well as the definition of a “pattern of racketeering activity” stated in MCL 750.159f(c), support a conclusion that all victims of Raisbeck’s potential scheme were included in the single racketeering charge.”
People v. Gonzalez, 671 N.W.2d 536 (Mich. 2003).
· cites it 2× “[2] MCL 750.159f(a). [3] MCL 750.159f(c).”
People v. Lowery, 736 N.W.2d 586 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “” See MCL 750.159f(a). But defendant must also have knowingly maintained an interest in or controlled the pub when it was used in the operation of an enterprise “through a pattern of racketeering activity.”
People v. Kloosterman, 823 N.W.2d 134 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 5× “Specifically, defendant asserts that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence of defendant’s involvement in a criminal enterprise separate and distinct from himself. The prosecution argues, however, that the language of MCL 750.”
People v. Guerra, 671 N.W.2d 535 (Mich. 2003).
· cites it 2× “[2] MCL 750.159f(a). [3] MCL 750.159f(c).”
People v. Martin, 752 N.W.2d 457 (Mich. 2008).
· cites it 2× “112(h) prohibits amendment of an information when the "amendment would unfairly surprise or prejudice the defendant." This clause protects against due process violations.”
People of Michigan v. Terrance Anthony Furline (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 5× “[MCL 750.159f(c)]. Plaintiff further charged Furline and Jenkins with first-degree retail fraud and third-degree arson under an aiding and abetting theory.”
People of Michigan v. Terrance Anthony Furline (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 5× “[MCL 750.159f(c)]. Plaintiff further charged Furline and Jenkins with first-degree retail fraud and third-degree arson under an aiding and abetting theory.”
People of Michigan v. Bernard Antoine Hardrick (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 3× “” MCL 750.159f(a). Racketeering is defined as “committing, attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or aiding or abetting, soliciting, coercing, or intimidating a person to commit an offense for financial gain, involving” false pretenses or forgery and counterfeiting.”
People of Michigan v. Bernard Antoine Hardrick (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 3× “” MCL 750.159f(a). Racketeering is defined as “committing, attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or aiding or abetting, soliciting, coercing, or intimidating a person to commit an offense for financial gain, involving” false pretenses or forgery and counterfeiting.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.159f(a) — 15 cases
People v. Martin, 721 N.W.2d 815 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
“[MCL 750.159f(a).] At trial, witnesses testified that defendant managed or was employed at Legg’s Lounge.”
People v. Gonzalez, 663 N.W.2d 499 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“" MCL 750.159f(a) defines "enterprise" as "an individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, trust, union, association, governmental unit, or other legal entity or a group or persons associated in fact although not a legal entity.”
People v. Kloosterman, 823 N.W.2d 134 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
“Specifically, defendant asserts that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence of defendant’s involvement in a criminal enterprise separate and distinct from himself. The prosecution argues, however, that the language of MCL 750.”
People v. Gonzalez, 671 N.W.2d 536 (Mich. 2003).
“[2] MCL 750.159f(a). [3] MCL 750.159f(c).”
People v. Lowery, 736 N.W.2d 586 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“” See MCL 750.159f(a). But defendant must also have knowingly maintained an interest in or controlled the pub when it was used in the operation of an enterprise “through a pattern of racketeering activity.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.159f(c) — 20 cases
People v. Martin, 721 N.W.2d 815 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
“[MCL 750.159f(a).] At trial, witnesses testified that defendant managed or was employed at Legg’s Lounge.”
People v. Gonzalez, 663 N.W.2d 499 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“" MCL 750.159f(a) defines "enterprise" as "an individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, trust, union, association, governmental unit, or other legal entity or a group or persons associated in fact although not a legal entity.”
People v. Raisbeck, 882 N.W.2d 161 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“159i(l), as well as the definition of a “pattern of racketeering activity” stated in MCL 750.159f(c), support a conclusion that all victims of Raisbeck’s potential scheme were included in the single racketeering charge.”
People v. Gonzalez, 671 N.W.2d 536 (Mich. 2003).
“[2] MCL 750.159f(a). [3] MCL 750.159f(c).”
People v. Guerra, 671 N.W.2d 535 (Mich. 2003).
“[2] MCL 750.159f(a). [3] MCL 750.159f(c).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.159f(c)(ii) — 2 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.159f(c)(iii) — 1 case
People v. Raisbeck, 882 N.W.2d 161 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“159i(l), as well as the definition of a “pattern of racketeering activity” stated in MCL 750.159f(c), support a conclusion that all victims of Raisbeck’s potential scheme were included in the single racketeering charge.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.159f(d) — 2 cases
People v. Lowery, 736 N.W.2d 586 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“” See MCL 750.159f(a). But defendant must also have knowingly maintained an interest in or controlled the pub when it was used in the operation of an enterprise “through a pattern of racketeering activity.”
People v. Kloosterman, 823 N.W.2d 134 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
“Specifically, defendant asserts that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence of defendant’s involvement in a criminal enterprise separate and distinct from himself. The prosecution argues, however, that the language of MCL 750.”
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.