N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 75D
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75D-8 (2026)

Available RICO civil remedies

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 75D CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) As part of a final judgment of forfeiture, any judge of the superior court may, after giving reasonable notice to potential innocent claimants, enjoin violations of G.S. 75D-4, by issuing one or more of the following orders and judgments:

(1) Ordering a defendant to divest oneself of an interest in any enterprise, real property, or personal property including property held by a tenancy by the entirety. If property is held by a tenancy by the entirety and one of the spouses is an innocent person as defined in G.S. 75D-5(i), upon entry of a final judgment of forfeiture of entirety property, the judgment operates to convert the tenancy by the entirety to a tenancy in common, and only the one-half undivided interest of the offending spouse shall be forfeited according to this Chapter.

(2) Imposing reasonable restrictions upon the future activities or investments of a defendant in the same or similar type of endeavor as the enterprise in which the defendant was engaged in violation of G.S. 75D-4.

(3) Ordering the dissolution or reorganization of an enterprise.

(4) Ordering the suspension or revocation of a license, permit, or prior approval granted to an enterprise by a State agency.

(5) Ordering the forfeiture of the charter of a corporation organized under the laws of this State or the revocation of a certificate authorizing a foreign corporation to conduct business in this State upon a finding that the board of directors or a managerial agent acting on behalf of the corporation, in conducting affairs of the corporation, has authorized or engaged in conduct in violation of G.S. 75D-4 and that, for the prevention of future unlawful activity, the public interest requires that the charter of the corporation be dissolved or the certificate be revoked.

(6) Appointment of a receiver pursuant to Article 38 of Chapter 1 of the General Statutes to collect, conserve, and dispose of all the proceeds, money, profits, and property, both real and personal, in accordance with this Chapter, as directed by the final judgment of the superior court having jurisdiction over the parties or subject matter of the action.

(7) Any other equitable remedy appropriate to effect complete forfeiture of property subject to forfeiture, or to prevent future violations of this Chapter.

(b) The State through the Attorney General may institute a proceeding under G.S. 75D-5. In the proceeding, relief shall be granted in conformity with the principles that govern the granting of injunctive relief from threatened loss or damage in other civil cases. However, the State is not required to show special or irreparable damage, nor is the State required to execute any bond before or after obtaining temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions.

(c) An innocent person that is injured or damaged in business or property by reason of any violation of G.S. 75D-4 involving a pattern of racketeering activity has a cause of action for three times the actual damages sustained and reasonable attorneys' fees. For purposes of this subsection, "pattern of racketeering activity" requires that at least one act of racketeering activity be an act of racketeering activity other than (i) an act indictable under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 or 18 U.S.C. § 1343 or (ii) an act that is an offense involving fraud in the sale of securities. A person filing a private action under this subsection shall concurrently notify the Attorney General in writing of the commencement of the action. Thereafter, the Attorney General may file a motion for a protective order in the court where the private action is pending and shall be granted a stay of the private action for a reasonable time if the court finds either of the following:

(1) The bringing of a private action is likely to materially interfere with or impair a public forfeiture action.

(2) The public interest is so great as to require the Attorney General to investigate and bring a forfeiture action.

(d) An injured innocent person has a right or claim to forfeited property, or to the proceeds derived from it, that is superior to any right or claim the State has in the same property or proceeds. To enforce the claim, the injured innocent person shall intervene in the forfeiture proceeding prior to its final disposition.

(e) A final conviction in a criminal proceeding estops the defendant in any subsequent civil action or proceeding under this Chapter as to all matters proved in the criminal proceeding.

(f) A defendant in an action commenced by the State pursuant to this Chapter who has two or more final convictions for violating any law set forth in G.S. 75D-3(8) and whose violations occurred within a four-year period as set forth in G.S. 75D-3(7) is deemed to have per se violated G.S. 75D-4(a)(1) or (2) as of the date of the second conviction.

(g) Any party is entitled to a jury trial in any action brought under this Chapter.  (1985 (Reg. Sess., 1986), c. 999, s. 1; 1989, c. 489, s. 1; 2025-25, s. 35(d).)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: Kaplan v. Prolife Action League of Greensboro, 475 S.E.2d 247 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kaplan v. Prolife Action League of Greensboro, 475 S.E.2d 247 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 50× “By order signed 15 May 1995, Judge Ross granted defendants' motions for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' NC RICO claim.”
In Re Bostic Constr., Inc., 435 B.R. 46 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. 2010). · cites it 4× “” N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75D-8(c) (2006). While “racketeering activity” is defined as a violation of one of a host of specified state and federal statutes, regardless of a person’s criminal intent, Puckett , slip op.”
Godfredson v. JBC Legal Grp., P.C., 387 F. Supp. 2d 543 (E.D.N.C. 2005). · cites it 3× “Count V — plaintiffs’ claims for violation of NCRICO The North Carolina RICO Act, although different in some respects from its federal counterpart, also requires plaintiff to allege injury to business or property in order to make out a claim.”
Delk v. ArvinMeritor, Inc., 179 F. Supp. 2d 615 (W.D.N.C. 2002). · cites it 3× “…of both federal and state Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) statutes. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 (c), 1964(c), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75D-8. Although Plaintiff does not clarify which of the various substantive RICO violations under § 1962 she alleges Defendants committed,…”
Gilmore v. Gilmore, 748 S.E.2d 42 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75D-8(c) (2011). Under the statute, racketeering activity “means to commit, to attempt to commit, or to solicit, coerce, or intimidate another person to commit an act or acts which would be chargeable by indictment if such act or acts were accompanied by the…”
Taylor v. Bettis, 976 F. Supp. 2d 721 (E.D.N.C. 2013). “§ 75D-8(c). After Plaintiffs initiated this action, one of them (William G.”
Synergy Fin., L.L.C. v. Zarro, 329 F. Supp. 2d 701 (W.D.N.C. 2004). · cites it 4× “” N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75D-8(c). As previously noted, the complaint here fails to identify the nature of the predicate act.”
North Carolina ex rel. Long v. Cooper, 14 F. Supp. 2d 767 (E.D.N.C. 1996). · cites it 6× “See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75D-8(c). The allegations advanced by the plaintiff in Counts I and II of the Complaint herein comply with this requirement.”
Puckett v. Kpmg, LLP 2006 Ncbc 19 (11/15/06, Amended 11/16/06) (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2006). · cites it 14× “” N.C.G.S. § 75D-8(c) (2006) (emphasis added).”
State of Nc on Relation of Long v. Cooper, 14 F. Supp. 2d 767 (E.D.N.C. 1996). · cites it 6× “See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75D-8(c). The allegations advanced by the plaintiff in Counts I and II of the Complaint herein comply with this requirement.”
Elhulu v. Alshalabi, 2025 NCBC 45 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2025). · cites it 6× “347, 356 (2013) (cleaned up); see also N.C.G.S. § 75D-8(c). Plaintiffs allege mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering as the requisite predicate acts.”
Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Guzman (W.D.N.C. 2022). · cites it 3× “1996) (citing N.C.G.S. § 75D-8(c)) (finding a “pattern” under the North Carolina Act is defined similarly to federal law, except that at least one predicate act must be something other than mail, wire, or securities fraud).”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75D-8(c) — 13 cases
Kaplan v. Prolife Action League of Greensboro, 475 S.E.2d 247 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996). “By order signed 15 May 1995, Judge Ross granted defendants' motions for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' NC RICO claim.”
In Re Bostic Constr., Inc., 435 B.R. 46 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. 2010). “” N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75D-8(c) (2006). While “racketeering activity” is defined as a violation of one of a host of specified state and federal statutes, regardless of a person’s criminal intent, Puckett , slip op.”
Godfredson v. JBC Legal Grp., P.C., 387 F. Supp. 2d 543 (E.D.N.C. 2005). “Count V — plaintiffs’ claims for violation of NCRICO The North Carolina RICO Act, although different in some respects from its federal counterpart, also requires plaintiff to allege injury to business or property in order to make out a claim.”
Gilmore v. Gilmore, 748 S.E.2d 42 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013). “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75D-8(c) (2011). Under the statute, racketeering activity “means to commit, to attempt to commit, or to solicit, coerce, or intimidate another person to commit an act or acts which would be chargeable by indictment if such act or acts were accompanied by the…”
Taylor v. Bettis, 976 F. Supp. 2d 721 (E.D.N.C. 2013). “§ 75D-8(c). After Plaintiffs initiated this action, one of them (William G.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75D-8(e) — 2 cases
North Carolina ex rel. Long v. Cooper, 14 F. Supp. 2d 767 (E.D.N.C. 1996). “See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75D-8(c). The allegations advanced by the plaintiff in Counts I and II of the Complaint herein comply with this requirement.”
State of Nc on Relation of Long v. Cooper, 14 F. Supp. 2d 767 (E.D.N.C. 1996). “See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75D-8(c). The allegations advanced by the plaintiff in Counts I and II of the Complaint herein comply with this requirement.”
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.