Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 1333
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 1333.92 (2026)

Prohibition

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
March 8, 2019
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 329 - 132nd General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

No person shall propose, plan, prepare, or operate a pyramid promotional scheme.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1980–2006 · leading case: State v. Beckley, 448 N.E.2d 1147 (Ohio 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Beckley, 448 N.E.2d 1147 (Ohio 1983). · cites it 26× “Are R.C. 1333.92 and the penalty provision therefor, R.”
Rieser v. Hayslip (In Re Canyon Sys. Corp.), 343 B.R. 615 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2006). · cites it 7× “Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 1333.91. Ohio Revised Code § 1333.”
Brown v. Exec. 200, Inc., 416 N.E.2d 610 (Ohio 1980). · cites it 2× “94 provides: “Whenever it appears that a person is violating or about to violate section 1333.92 of the Revised Code, the attorney general may bring an action in the court of common pleas to enjoin the violation.”
State v. Guinn, 537 N.E.2d 656 (Ohio 1989). · cites it 12× “The sole issue for our determination in this case is whether the state’s evidence was sufficient, beyond a reasonable doubt, to prove each essential element of the offense defined in R.C. 1333.92, prohibiting pyramid sales plans or programs.”
In Re Disposition of Prop. Held by Geauga Cnty. Sheriff, 718 N.E.2d 990 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 5× “Appellees stipulated below, through counsel, that this meeting was, in actuality, a meeting designed to promote a pyramid sales plan of the type prohibited by R.C. 1333.92. Appellees asserted that they attended the meeting and listened to the organizers explain the various rules…”
State Ex Rel. Fisher v. Harper, 615 N.E.2d 733 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “2d 656 , the Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed a criminal conviction of an individual under R.C. 1333.92. The Supreme Court cited State v.”
State Ex Rel. Celebrezze v. Howard, 602 N.E.2d 665 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). “Thus there was substantial evidence of all of the elements of the violation of R.C. 1333.92 and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding a violation.”
State v. Taub, 547 N.E.2d 360 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). “On March 19,1987, appellees were indicted by the grand jury and charged with violating Ohio’s prohibition of pyramid sales plan or program, R.C. 1333.92 and 1333.99. As a result of a hearing on a suppression motion, all of the seized property was suppressed.”
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.