Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2923
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.32 (2026)

Engaging in pattern of corrupt activity

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
April 9, 2025
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 366 - 135th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A)(1) No person employed by, or associated with, any enterprise shall conduct or participate in, directly or indirectly, the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of corrupt activity or the collection of an unlawful debt.

(2) No person, through a pattern of corrupt activity or the collection of an unlawful debt, shall acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in, or control of, any enterprise or real property.

(3) No person, who knowingly has received any proceeds derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of corrupt activity or the collection of any unlawful debt, shall use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of those proceeds, or any proceeds derived from the use or investment of any of those proceeds, in the acquisition of any title to, or any right, interest, or equity in, real property or in the establishment or operation of any enterprise.

A purchase of securities on the open market with intent to make an investment, without intent to control or participate in the control of the issuer, and without intent to assist another to do so is not a violation of this division, if the securities of the issuer held after the purchase by the purchaser, the members of the purchaser's immediate family, and the purchaser's or the immediate family members' accomplices in any pattern of corrupt activity or the collection of an unlawful debt do not aggregate one per cent of the outstanding securities of any one class of the issuer and do not confer, in law or in fact, the power to elect one or more directors of the issuer.

(B)(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. Except as otherwise provided in this division, engaging in corrupt activity is a felony of the second degree. Except as otherwise provided in this division, if at least one of the incidents of corrupt activity is a felony of the first, second, or third degree, aggravated murder, or murder, if at least one of the incidents was a felony under the law of this state that was committed prior to July 1, 1996, and that would constitute a felony of the first, second, or third degree, aggravated murder, or murder if committed on or after July 1, 1996, or if at least one of the incidents of corrupt activity is a felony under the law of the United States or of another state that, if committed in this state on or after July 1, 1996, would constitute a felony of the first, second, or third degree, aggravated murder, or murder under the law of this state, engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity is a felony of the first degree. If the offender also is convicted of or pleads guilty to a specification as described in section 2941.1422 of the Revised Code that was included in the indictment, count in the indictment, or information charging the offense, engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity is a felony of the first degree, and the court shall sentence the offender to a mandatory prison term as provided in division (B)(7) of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code and shall order the offender to make restitution as provided in division (B)(8) of section 2929.18 of the Revised Code. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person may be convicted of violating the provisions of this section as well as of a conspiracy to violate one or more of those provisions under section 2923.01 of the Revised Code.

(2) Notwithstanding the financial sanctions authorized by section 2929.18 of the Revised Code, the court may do all of the following with respect to any person who derives pecuniary value or causes property damage, personal injury other than pain and suffering, or other loss through or by the violation of this section:

(a) In lieu of the fine authorized by that section, impose a fine not exceeding the greater of three times the gross value gained or three times the gross loss caused and order the clerk of the court to pay the fine into the state treasury to the credit of the corrupt activity investigation and prosecution fund, which is hereby created;

(b) In addition to the fine described in division (B)(2)(a) of this section and the financial sanctions authorized by section 2929.18 of the Revised Code, order the person to pay court costs;

(c) In addition to the fine described in division (B)(2)(a) of this section and the financial sanctions authorized by section 2929.18 of the Revised Code, order the person to pay to the state, municipal, or county law enforcement agencies that handled the investigation and prosecution the costs of investigation and prosecution that are reasonably incurred.

The court shall hold a hearing to determine the amount of fine, court costs, and other costs to be imposed under this division.

(3) In addition to any other penalty or disposition authorized or required by law, the court shall order any person who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a violation of this section or who is adjudicated delinquent by reason of a violation of this section to criminally forfeit to the state under Chapter 2981. of the Revised Code any personal or real property in which the person has an interest and that was used in the course of or intended for use in the course of a violation of this section, or that was derived from or realized through conduct in violation of this section, including any property constituting an interest in, means of control over, or influence over the enterprise involved in the violation and any property constituting proceeds derived from the violation, including all of the following:

(a) Any position, office, appointment, tenure, commission, or employment contract of any kind acquired or maintained by the person in violation of this section, through which the person, in violation of this section, conducted or participated in the conduct of an enterprise, or that afforded the person a source of influence or control over an enterprise that the person exercised in violation of this section;

(b) Any compensation, right, or benefit derived from a position, office, appointment, tenure, commission, or employment contract described in division (B)(3)(a) of this section that accrued to the person in violation of this section during the period of the pattern of corrupt activity;

(c) Any interest in, security of, claim against, or property or contractual right affording the person a source of influence or control over the affairs of an enterprise that the person exercised in violation of this section;

(d) Any amount payable or paid under any contract for goods or services that was awarded or performed in violation of this section.

(C) If a pattern of corrupt activity involves one or more incidents of organized retail theft, the retail establishment, manufacturer, distributor, cargo transportation unit, online marketplace, or group of those entities whose retail property is alleged to have been stolen may contact the prosecuting attorney and request that the charge be aggregated with other thefts of retail property about which the retail establishment or group of establishments is aware.

In determining whether the retail value of stolen retail property equals or exceeds one thousand dollars, the value of all retail property stolen from the retail establishment or group of establishments by the same person or persons within any six-month period shall be aggregated.

Last updated January 21, 2025 at 3:09 PM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 536 cases (165 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: State v. Siferd, 783 N.E.2d 591 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Siferd, 783 N.E.2d 591 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2003). · cites it 35× “Finally, Siferd claims to be merely a victimized addict, asserting that the state failed to introduce sufficient evidence that he was “associated with” the criminal enterprise as contemplated by R.C. 2923.32. Having examined the record, we find this self-characterization to be…”
State v. Miranda, 2014-Ohio-451, 5 N.E.3d 603. · cites it 23× “That purpose has always been found in division (A)(1) of the statute, which specifies that it is the pattern that constitutes the offense.”
State v. Dent (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6670, 170 N.E.3d 816. · cites it 13× “] Criminal law—R.C. 2923.32—Engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity—The existence of an enterprise is established by showing that the organization is fully operational and engaging in a pattern of illicit activity—The time frame for the commission of a pattern of criminal…”
State v. Stevens, 2014-Ohio-1932, 11 N.E.3d 252. · cites it 44× “Although the total amount of money involved in the sales attributed to each appellant was $460 and $250 respectively, they were both charged with engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity under R.C. 2923.32. Bondurant received a mandatory sentence of seven years for violating…”
Bradley v. Miller, 96 F. Supp. 3d 753 (S.D. Ohio 2015). · cites it 43× “Counts six and seven assert a violation and a conspiracy to violate the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act (“OCPA”), Ohio Rev.Code § 2923.32. Counts eight, nine, and ten assert claims for fraud, breach of contract, and negligence.”
State v. Thrower, 575 N.E.2d 863 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1989). · cites it 21× “” The Throwers contend that R.C. 2923.32 is unconstitutional for various reasons including that it violates the Ex Post Facto Clause and fails to set forth ascertainable standards of guilt.”
State v. Beverly (Slip Opinion), 2015-Ohio-219, 37 N.E.3d 116. · cites it 13× “{¶ 4} The state’s sole proposition of law states: In order to prove the existence of an “enterprise” to sustain a conviction for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity in violation of R.C. 2923.32, the State is not required to prove that the organization is a structure…”
State v. Willan, 2013-Ohio-2405, 994 N.E.2d 400. · cites it 40× “BACKGROUND {¶ 2} In December 2008, a jury found cross-appellee, David Willan, guilty of 68 counts, including one first-degree-felony count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity in violation of R.C. 2923.32, Ohio’s Racketeer- Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”)…”
State v. Schlosser, 681 N.E.2d 911 (Ohio 1997). · cites it 16× “32(A)(3), 1 which sets forth a “knowingly” mental state, R.C. 2923.32 is silent as to what culpable mental state a defendant must possess in order to be convicted.”
State v. Haddix, 638 N.E.2d 1096 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1994). · cites it 20× “On December 16, 1992, appellant was indicted by the Preble County Grand Jury on one count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity in violation of R.C. 2923.32, the Ohio RICO (“Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act”) (Count 1 of the indictment), and three counts…”
State v. Griffin (Slip Opinion), 2014-Ohio-4767, 141 Ohio St. 3d 392. · cites it 9× “] Criminal law—R.C. 2923.32—Jury instructions—Definition of “enterprise.”
State v. Ross, 2012-Ohio-536. · cites it 15× “{¶18} R.C. 2923.32 defines the offense of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity and provides, in relevant part, as follows: “No person employed by, or associated with, any enterprise shall conduct or participate in, directly or indirectly, the affairs of the enterprise…”
Show all 536 citing cases →
Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.32(2)(3): 1 case
Alepps v. Lindner, No. 1:19-cv-00968 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 22, 2020).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.32(A): 28 cases
Bradley v. Miller, 96 F. Supp. 3d 753 (S.D. Ohio 2015). “Counts six and seven assert a violation and a conspiracy to violate the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act (“OCPA”), Ohio Rev.Code § 2923.32. Counts eight, nine, and ten assert claims for fraud, breach of contract, and negligence.”
Morrow v. Reminger & Reminger Co., 915 N.E.2d 696 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2009).
State v. Burkitt, 624 N.E.2d 210 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1993).
State v. Feliciano, 685 N.E.2d 1307 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1996).
State v. Colston, 2020-Ohio-3879.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.32(A)(1): 367 cases
State v. Miranda, 2014-Ohio-451, 5 N.E.3d 603. “That purpose has always been found in division (A)(1) of the statute, which specifies that it is the pattern that constitutes the offense.”
State v. Siferd, 783 N.E.2d 591 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2003). “Finally, Siferd claims to be merely a victimized addict, asserting that the state failed to introduce sufficient evidence that he was “associated with” the criminal enterprise as contemplated by R.C. 2923.32. Having examined the record, we find this self-characterization to be…”
State v. Beverly (Slip Opinion), 2015-Ohio-219, 37 N.E.3d 116. “{¶ 4} The state’s sole proposition of law states: In order to prove the existence of an “enterprise” to sustain a conviction for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity in violation of R.C. 2923.32, the State is not required to prove that the organization is a structure…”
State v. Stevens, 2014-Ohio-1932, 11 N.E.3d 252. “Although the total amount of money involved in the sales attributed to each appellant was $460 and $250 respectively, they were both charged with engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity under R.C. 2923.32. Bondurant received a mandatory sentence of seven years for violating…”
State v. Schlosser, 681 N.E.2d 911 (Ohio 1997). “32(A)(3), 1 which sets forth a “knowingly” mental state, R.C. 2923.32 is silent as to what culpable mental state a defendant must possess in order to be convicted.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.32(A)(1)(B): 8 cases
State v. Austin, 2019-Ohio-1185.
State v. Kozic, 2014-Ohio-3788.
State v. Panezich, 2018-Ohio-2812.
State v. Kozic, 2016-Ohio-8556.
State v. Kozic, 2018-Ohio-816.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.32(A)(1)(B)(1): 3 cases
State v. Freeman, 2014-Ohio-5725.
State v. Perez, 2018-Ohio-635.
State v. Maggianetti, 2011-Ohio-6370.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.32(A)(2): 13 cases
Bradley v. Miller, 96 F. Supp. 3d 753 (S.D. Ohio 2015). “Counts six and seven assert a violation and a conspiracy to violate the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act (“OCPA”), Ohio Rev.Code § 2923.32. Counts eight, nine, and ten assert claims for fraud, breach of contract, and negligence.”
State v. Thrower, 575 N.E.2d 863 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1989). “” The Throwers contend that R.C. 2923.32 is unconstitutional for various reasons including that it violates the Ex Post Facto Clause and fails to set forth ascertainable standards of guilt.”
U.S. Demolition & Contracting, Inc. v. O'Rourke Constr. Co., 640 N.E.2d 235 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1994).
Cleveland v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2013-Ohio-1035.
State v. Burkitt, 624 N.E.2d 210 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1993).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.32(A)(3): 21 cases
Bradley v. Miller, 96 F. Supp. 3d 753 (S.D. Ohio 2015). “Counts six and seven assert a violation and a conspiracy to violate the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act (“OCPA”), Ohio Rev.Code § 2923.32. Counts eight, nine, and ten assert claims for fraud, breach of contract, and negligence.”
Schlenker Ents., L.P. v. Reese, 2010-Ohio-5308.
State v. Thrower, 575 N.E.2d 863 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1989). “” The Throwers contend that R.C. 2923.32 is unconstitutional for various reasons including that it violates the Ex Post Facto Clause and fails to set forth ascertainable standards of guilt.”
State v. Wertman, 2019-Ohio-7.
State v. Schlosser, 681 N.E.2d 911 (Ohio 1997). “32(A)(3), 1 which sets forth a “knowingly” mental state, R.C. 2923.32 is silent as to what culpable mental state a defendant must possess in order to be convicted.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.32(A)(l): 2 cases
Thompson v. Bracy, No. 1:19-cv-00058 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 29, 2022).
State v. Durham, 2020-Ohio-4758.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.32(B): 7 cases
State v. Bondurant, 2012-Ohio-4912.
State v. Stevens, 2014-Ohio-1932, 11 N.E.3d 252. “Although the total amount of money involved in the sales attributed to each appellant was $460 and $250 respectively, they were both charged with engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity under R.C. 2923.32. Bondurant received a mandatory sentence of seven years for violating…”
State v. Mielke, 2013-Ohio-1612.
State v. Burge, 611 N.E.2d 866 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1992).
State v. Burkitt, 624 N.E.2d 210 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1993).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.32(B)(1): 31 cases
State v. Stevens, 2014-Ohio-1932, 11 N.E.3d 252. “Although the total amount of money involved in the sales attributed to each appellant was $460 and $250 respectively, they were both charged with engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity under R.C. 2923.32. Bondurant received a mandatory sentence of seven years for violating…”
State v. Ross, 2012-Ohio-536. “{¶18} R.C. 2923.32 defines the offense of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity and provides, in relevant part, as follows: “No person employed by, or associated with, any enterprise shall conduct or participate in, directly or indirectly, the affairs of the enterprise…”
State v. Willan, 2013-Ohio-2405, 994 N.E.2d 400. “BACKGROUND {¶ 2} In December 2008, a jury found cross-appellee, David Willan, guilty of 68 counts, including one first-degree-felony count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity in violation of R.C. 2923.32, Ohio’s Racketeer- Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”)…”
State v. Willan, 2011-Ohio-6603.
State v. Christian (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-828, 152 N.E.3d 216.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.32(B)(2): 6 cases
State v. Jones, 2013-Ohio-2616.
State v. Burge, 611 N.E.2d 866 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1992).
State v. Burkitt, 624 N.E.2d 210 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1993).
State v. Nasrallah, 745 N.E.2d 511 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 2000).
State v. Donaldson, 2020-Ohio-3591.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.32(B)(2)(a): 8 cases
State v. Jones, 2013-Ohio-2616.
State v. Burge, 611 N.E.2d 866 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1992).
In Re Nat'l Century Fin. Enter., Inc., 783 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (S.D. Ohio 2011).
State v. Williams, 2017-Ohio-1002.
State v. Musselman, 2013-Ohio-1584.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.32(B)(2)(c): 4 cases
State v. Burkitt, 624 N.E.2d 210 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1993).
State v. Perz, 877 N.E.2d 702 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 2007).
State v. Walker, 2017-Ohio-8566.
State v. Donaldson, 2020-Ohio-3591.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.32(B)(3): 8 cases
State v. Burkitt, 624 N.E.2d 210 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1993).
Pimper v. State Ex Rel. Simpson, 555 S.E.2d 459 (Ga. 2001).
State v. Thrower, 575 N.E.2d 863 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1989). “” The Throwers contend that R.C. 2923.32 is unconstitutional for various reasons including that it violates the Ex Post Facto Clause and fails to set forth ascertainable standards of guilt.”
State v. Burge, 611 N.E.2d 866 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1992).
State v. Thrower, 610 N.E.2d 433 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.32(B)(4): 4 cases
State v. Thrower, 575 N.E.2d 863 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1989). “” The Throwers contend that R.C. 2923.32 is unconstitutional for various reasons including that it violates the Ex Post Facto Clause and fails to set forth ascertainable standards of guilt.”
State v. Christian, 2014-Ohio-2672.
Pimper v. State Ex Rel. Simpson, 555 S.E.2d 459 (Ga. 2001).
Stanley P. Aronson v. City of Akron, 116 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 1997).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.32(B)(4)(a): 1 case
State v. Miranda, 2014-Ohio-451, 5 N.E.3d 603. “That purpose has always been found in division (A)(1) of the statute, which specifies that it is the pattern that constitutes the offense.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.32(D): 1 case
State v. Burge, 623 N.E.2d 146 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1993).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.32(E): 5 cases
James v. McCoy, 56 F. Supp. 2d 919 (S.D. Ohio 1998).
State v. Thrower, 610 N.E.2d 433 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991).
State v. Keith, 610 N.E.2d 1017 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1991).
State v. Morgan, 642 N.E.2d 1090 (Ohio 1994).
State v. Morgan, 1994 Ohio 439 (Ohio 1994).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.32(E)(4): 2 cases
State v. Thrower, 610 N.E.2d 433 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991).
State v. Keith, 610 N.E.2d 1017 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1991).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.32(F): 3 cases
Stanley P. Aronson v. City of Akron, 116 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 1997).
State v. Keith, 610 N.E.2d 1017 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1991).
State v. Thrower, 610 N.E.2d 433 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.32(I)(2)(c): 1 case
State v. Baldwin, 2020-Ohio-699.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.32(a)(1): 1 case
State v. Lewis, 2019-Ohio-3154.
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.