Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2923 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.34 (2026)

Civil proceeding seeking relief from any person whose conduct constitutes corrupt activity

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
July 1, 2007
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 241 - 126th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) Any person who is injured or threatened with injury by a violation of section 2923.32 of the Revised Code may institute a civil proceeding in an appropriate court seeking relief from any person whose conduct violated or allegedly violated section 2923.32 of the Revised Code or who conspired or allegedly conspired to violate that section, except that the pattern of corrupt activity alleged by an injured person or person threatened with injury shall include at least one incident other than a violation of division (A)(1) or (2) of section 1707.042 or division (B), (C)(4), (D), (E), or (F) of section 1707.44 of the Revised Code, of 18 U.S.C. 1341, 18 U.S.C. 1343, 18 U.S.C. 2314, or any other offense involving fraud in the sale of securities.

(B) If the plaintiff in a civil action instituted pursuant to this section proves the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, the court, after making due provision for the rights of innocent persons, may grant relief by entering any appropriate orders to ensure that the violation will not continue or be repeated. The orders may include, but are not limited to, orders that:

(1) Require the divestiture of the defendant's interest in any enterprise or in any real property;

(2) Impose reasonable restrictions upon the future activities or investments of any defendant in the action, including, but not limited to, restrictions that prohibit the defendant from engaging in the same type of endeavor as the enterprise in which the defendant was engaged in violation of section 2923.32 of the Revised Code;

(3) Order the dissolution or reorganization of any enterprise;

(4) Order the suspension or revocation of a license, permit, or prior approval granted to any enterprise by any department or agency of the state;

(5) Order the dissolution of a corporation organized under the laws of this state, or the revocation of the authorization of a foreign corporation to conduct business within this state, upon a finding that the board of directors or an agent acting on behalf of the corporation, in conducting the affairs of the corporation, has authorized or engaged in conduct in violation of section 2923.32 of the Revised Code, and that, for the prevention of future criminal conduct, the public interest requires the corporation to be dissolved or its license revoked.

(C) Relief pursuant to division (B)(3), (4), or (5) of this section shall not be granted in any civil proceeding instituted by an injured person unless the attorney general intervenes in the civil action pursuant to this division.

Upon the filing of a civil proceeding for relief under division (B)(3), (4), or (5) of this section by an allegedly injured person other than a prosecuting attorney, the allegedly injured person immediately shall notify the attorney general of the filing. The attorney general, upon timely application, may intervene in any civil proceeding for relief under division (B)(3), (4), or (5) if the attorney general certifies that, in the attorney general's opinion, the proceeding is of general public interest. In any proceeding brought by an injured person under division (B)(3), (4), or (5) of this section, the attorney general is entitled to the same relief as if the attorney general instituted the proceeding.

(D) In a civil proceeding under division (B) of this section, the court may grant injunctive relief without a showing of special or irreparable injury.

Pending final determination of a civil proceeding initiated under this section, the court may issue a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction upon a showing of immediate danger or significant injury to the plaintiff, including the possibility that any judgment for money damages might be difficult to execute, and, in a proceeding initiated by an aggrieved person, upon the execution of proper bond against injury for an improvidently granted injunction.

(E) In a civil proceeding under division (A) of this section, any person directly or indirectly injured by conduct in violation of section 2923.32 of the Revised Code or a conspiracy to violate that section, other than a violator of that section or a conspirator to violate that section, in addition to relief under division (B) of this section, shall have a cause of action for triple the actual damages the person sustained. To recover triple damages, the plaintiff shall prove the violation or conspiracy to violate that section and actual damages by clear and convincing evidence. Damages under this division may include, but are not limited to, competitive injury and injury distinct from the injury inflicted by corrupt activity.

(F) In a civil action in which the plaintiff prevails under division (B) or (E) of this section, the plaintiff shall recover reasonable attorney fees in the trial and appellate courts, and the court shall order the defendant to pay to the state, municipal, or county law enforcement agencies that handled the investigation and litigation the costs of investigation and litigation that reasonably are incurred and that are not ordered to be paid pursuant to division (B)(2) of section 2923.32 of the Revised Code or division (H) of this section.

(G) Upon application, based on the evidence presented in the case by the plaintiff, as the interests of justice may require, the trial court may grant a defendant who prevails in a civil action brought pursuant to this section all or part of the defendant's costs, including the costs of investigation and litigation reasonably incurred, and all or part of the defendant's reasonable attorney fees, unless the court finds that special circumstances, including the relative economic position of the parties, make an award unjust.

(H) If a person, other than an individual, is not convicted of a violation of section 2923.32 of the Revised Code, the prosecuting attorney may institute proceedings against the person to recover a civil penalty for conduct that the prosecuting attorney proves by clear and convincing evidence is in violation of section 2923.32 of the Revised Code. The civil penalty shall not exceed one hundred thousand dollars and shall be paid into the state treasury to the credit of the corrupt activity investigation and prosecution fund created in section 2923.32 of the Revised Code. If a civil penalty is ordered pursuant to this division, the court shall order the defendant to pay to the state, municipal, or county law enforcement agencies that handled the investigation and litigation the costs of investigation and litigation that are reasonably incurred and that are not ordered to be paid pursuant to this section.

(I) A final judgment, decree, or delinquency adjudication rendered against the defendant or the adjudicated delinquent child in a civil action under this section or in a criminal or delinquency action or proceeding for a violation of section 2923.32 of the Revised Code shall estop the defendant or the adjudicated delinquent child in any subsequent civil proceeding or action brought by any person as to all matters as to which the judgment, decree, or adjudication would be an estoppel as between the parties to the civil, criminal, or delinquency proceeding or action.

(J) Notwithstanding any other provision of law providing a shorter period of limitations, a civil proceeding or action under this section may be commenced at any time within five years after the unlawful conduct terminates or the cause of action accrues or within any longer statutory period of limitations that may be applicable. If a criminal proceeding, delinquency proceeding, civil action, or other proceeding is brought or intervened in by the state to punish, prevent, or restrain any activity that is unlawful under section 2923.32 of the Revised Code, the running of the period of limitations prescribed by this division with respect to any civil action brought under this section by a person who is injured by a violation or threatened violation of section 2923.32 of the Revised Code, based in whole or in part upon any matter complained of in the state prosecution, action, or proceeding, shall be suspended during the pendency of the state prosecution, action, or proceeding and for two years following its termination.

(K) Personal service of any process in a proceeding under this section may be made upon any person outside this state if the person was involved in any conduct constituting a violation of section 2923.32 of the Revised Code in this state. The person is deemed by the person's conduct in violation of section 2923.32 of the Revised Code to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state for the purposes of this section.

(L) The application of any civil remedy under this section shall not preclude the application of any criminal remedy or criminal forfeiture under section 2923.32 of the Revised Code or any other provision of law, or the application of any delinquency disposition under Chapter 2152. of the Revised Code or any other provision of law.

(M)(1) Any person who prevails in a civil action pursuant to this section has a right to any property, or the proceeds of any property, criminally forfeited to the state pursuant to section 2981.04 of the Revised Code or against which any fine under section 2923.32 of the Revised Code or civil penalty under division (H) of this section may be imposed.

The right of any person who prevails in a civil action pursuant to this section, other than a prosecuting attorney performing official duties under that section, to forfeited property, property against which fines and civil penalties may be imposed, and the proceeds of that property is superior to any right of the state, a municipal corporation, or a county to the property or the proceeds of the property, if the civil action is brought within one hundred eighty days after the entry of a sentence of forfeiture or a fine pursuant to sections 2923.32 and 2981.04 of the Revised Code or the entry of a civil penalty pursuant to division (H) of this section.

The right is limited to the total value of the treble damages, civil penalties, attorney's fees, and costs awarded to the prevailing party in an action pursuant to this section, less any restitution received by the person.

(2) If the aggregate amount of claims of persons who have prevailed in a civil action pursuant to this section against any one defendant is greater than the total value of the treble fines, civil penalties, and forfeited property paid by the person against whom the actions were brought, all of the persons who brought their actions within one hundred eighty days after the entry of a sentence or disposition of forfeiture or a fine pursuant to section 2923.32 of the Revised Code or the entry of a civil penalty pursuant to division (H) of this section, first shall receive a pro rata share of the total amount of the fines, civil penalties, and forfeited property. After the persons who brought their actions within the specified one-hundred-eighty-day period have satisfied their claims out of the fines, civil penalties, and forfeited property, all other persons who prevailed in civil actions pursuant to this section shall receive a pro rata share of the total amount of the fines, civil penalties, and forfeited property that remains in the custody of the law enforcement agency or in the corrupt activity investigation and prosecution fund.

(N) As used in this section, "law enforcement agency" includes, but is not limited to, the state board of pharmacy.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 67 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Baker v. Pfeifer, 940 F. Supp. 1168 (S.D. Ohio 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Baker v. Pfeifer, 940 F. Supp. 1168 (S.D. Ohio 1996). · cites it 22× “R.C. § 2923.34(B). 17 Defendants argue that, while Plaintiffs have included a “bald claim of theft by deception” in the Complaint, Plaintiffs cannot produce any evidence of this alleged predicate act.”
Doe v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 849 N.E.2d 268 (Ohio 2006). · cites it 5× “The statute of limitations for an Ohio Corrupt Activity Act claim is governed by R.C. 2923.34(E), which states, “[A] civil proceeding or action under this section may be commenced at any time within five years after the unlawful conduct terminates or the cause of action accrues…”
Morrow v. Reminger & Reminger Co., 915 N.E.2d 696 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “” R.C. 2923.34 grants a civil remedy to a person injured or threatened with injury by a violation of R.”
In Re Nat'l Century Fin. Enter., Inc., 604 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (S.D. Ohio 2009). · cites it 8× “Ohio March 7, 2006) (that defendants "did not personally commit predicate acts" did not preclude liability under § 2923.34 for conspiracy to violate the Corrupt Activities Act); State v.”
Lowe v. Bowers (In Re Nicole Gas Prod., Ltd.), 916 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2019). · cites it 3× “Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.34. As the sole shareholder of Nicole Gas, normally Fulson would have to seek relief from Nicole Gas's competitors via the traditional route of derivative liability.”
Iron Workers Local Union No. 17 Ins. Fund v. Philip Morris Inc., 29 F. Supp. 2d 801 (N.D. Ohio 1998). · cites it 19× “In Ohio Rev.Code § 2923.34, the Ohio General Assembly provided for a civil action for violation of Ohio Rev.”
TJX Companies, Inc. v. Hall, 183 Ohio App. 3d 236 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 6× “{¶ 16} In a civil action under R.C. 2923.34, the plaintiff is entitled to relief upon proof of the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 656 F. Supp. 49 (S.D. Ohio 1986). · cites it 6× “We find that the better view is that the statute begins to run from the time plaintiffs knew or should have known of the fraud because it is consistent with our analysis regarding plaintiffs’ state common law fraud claim as well as with the second alternative set forth in Ohio…”
Barton v. Cuyahoga Cty, 2020 Ohio 6994 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 8× “In March 2016, appellants filed an amended complaint against the County for “unlawful retention of forfeited funds” pursuant to “R.C. 2923.34 and/or 2981.06,” replevin, and conversion.”
Passa v. City of Columbus, 748 F. Supp. 2d 804 (S.D. Ohio 2010). · cites it 13× “§ 1983 and claims of common law fraud and civil conspiracy under O.R.C. § 2923.34. 2 All claims arise out of the City’s Check Resolution Program (“Program”) and the participation in that Program by payday lenders.”
CSAHA/UHHS-Canton, Inc. v. Aultman Health Found., 2012 Ohio 897 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 10× “{¶99} Aultman argued in its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and on appeal in a civil POCA action under R.C 2923.34, there are only two remedies available to the plaintiff: injunctive relief and/or triple the actual damages the party Stark County, Case No.”
Bradley v. Miller, 96 F. Supp. 3d 753 (S.D. Ohio 2015). · cites it 7× “” Ohio Rev.Code § 2923.34(E). Ohio courts apply “traditional notions of proximate cause” to civil OCPA actions.”
Show all 67 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.34(1) — 2 cases
TJX Companies, Inc. v. Hall, 183 Ohio App. 3d 236 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). “{¶ 16} In a civil action under R.C. 2923.34, the plaintiff is entitled to relief upon proof of the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Baxter v. Jones, 614 N.E.2d 1094 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.34(A) — 14 cases
In Re Nat'l Century Fin. Enter., Inc., 604 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (S.D. Ohio 2009). “Ohio March 7, 2006) (that defendants "did not personally commit predicate acts" did not preclude liability under § 2923.34 for conspiracy to violate the Corrupt Activities Act); State v.”
W. & S. Life Ins. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 54 F. Supp. 3d 888 (S.D. Ohio 2014).
Barton v. Cuyahoga Cty, 2020 Ohio 6994 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “In March 2016, appellants filed an amended complaint against the County for “unlawful retention of forfeited funds” pursuant to “R.C. 2923.34 and/or 2981.06,” replevin, and conversion.”
Salata v. Vallas, 823 N.E.2d 50 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004).
TJX Companies, Inc. v. Hall, 183 Ohio App. 3d 236 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). “{¶ 16} In a civil action under R.C. 2923.34, the plaintiff is entitled to relief upon proof of the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.34(B) — 11 cases
Morrow v. Reminger & Reminger Co., 915 N.E.2d 696 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). “” R.C. 2923.34 grants a civil remedy to a person injured or threatened with injury by a violation of R.”
Baker v. Pfeifer, 940 F. Supp. 1168 (S.D. Ohio 1996). “R.C. § 2923.34(B). 17 Defendants argue that, while Plaintiffs have included a “bald claim of theft by deception” in the Complaint, Plaintiffs cannot produce any evidence of this alleged predicate act.”
Lopardo v. Lehman Bros., Inc., 548 F. Supp. 2d 450 (N.D. Ohio 2008).
CSAHA/UHHS-Canton, Inc. v. Aultman Health Found., 2012 Ohio 897 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “{¶99} Aultman argued in its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and on appeal in a civil POCA action under R.C 2923.34, there are only two remedies available to the plaintiff: injunctive relief and/or triple the actual damages the party Stark County, Case No.”
TJX Companies, Inc. v. Hall, 183 Ohio App. 3d 236 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). “{¶ 16} In a civil action under R.C. 2923.34, the plaintiff is entitled to relief upon proof of the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.34(B)(1) — 1 case
Gustavus, L.L.C. v. Eagle Invests., 2012 Ohio 1433 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.34(B)(2) — 1 case
CSAHA/UHHS-Canton, Inc. v. Aultman Health Found., 2012 Ohio 897 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “{¶99} Aultman argued in its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and on appeal in a civil POCA action under R.C 2923.34, there are only two remedies available to the plaintiff: injunctive relief and/or triple the actual damages the party Stark County, Case No.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.34(B)(5) — 1 case
Lowe v. Bowers (In Re Nicole Gas Prod., Ltd.), 916 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2019). “Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.34. As the sole shareholder of Nicole Gas, normally Fulson would have to seek relief from Nicole Gas's competitors via the traditional route of derivative liability.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.34(C) — 3 cases
Baxter v. Jones, 614 N.E.2d 1094 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).
Rehab Proj., Inc. v. Sarno, 608 N.E.2d 1188 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).
Abington Emerson Capital, LLC v. Adkins (S.D. Ohio 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.34(E) — 19 cases
Doe v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 849 N.E.2d 268 (Ohio 2006). “The statute of limitations for an Ohio Corrupt Activity Act claim is governed by R.C. 2923.34(E), which states, “[A] civil proceeding or action under this section may be commenced at any time within five years after the unlawful conduct terminates or the cause of action accrues…”
Baker v. Pfeifer, 940 F. Supp. 1168 (S.D. Ohio 1996). “R.C. § 2923.34(B). 17 Defendants argue that, while Plaintiffs have included a “bald claim of theft by deception” in the Complaint, Plaintiffs cannot produce any evidence of this alleged predicate act.”
Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 656 F. Supp. 49 (S.D. Ohio 1986). “We find that the better view is that the statute begins to run from the time plaintiffs knew or should have known of the fraud because it is consistent with our analysis regarding plaintiffs’ state common law fraud claim as well as with the second alternative set forth in Ohio…”
Bradley v. Miller, 96 F. Supp. 3d 753 (S.D. Ohio 2015). “” Ohio Rev.Code § 2923.34(E). Ohio courts apply “traditional notions of proximate cause” to civil OCPA actions.”
In re Nicole Gas Prod., Ltd., 519 B.R. 723 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2014).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.34(F) — 15 cases
Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 106 Ohio St. 3d 278 (Ohio 2005).
Iron Workers Local Union No.17 Ins. Fund v. Philip Morris Inc., 29 F. Supp. 2d 825 (S.D. Ohio 1998).
Iron Workers Local Union No. 17 Ins. Fund v. Philip Morris Inc., 29 F. Supp. 2d 801 (N.D. Ohio 1998). “In Ohio Rev.Code § 2923.34, the Ohio General Assembly provided for a civil action for violation of Ohio Rev.”
Bradley v. Miller, 96 F. Supp. 3d 753 (S.D. Ohio 2015). “” Ohio Rev.Code § 2923.34(E). Ohio courts apply “traditional notions of proximate cause” to civil OCPA actions.”
TJX Companies, Inc. v. Hall, 183 Ohio App. 3d 236 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). “{¶ 16} In a civil action under R.C. 2923.34, the plaintiff is entitled to relief upon proof of the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.34(G) — 1 case
Gustavus, L.L.C. v. Eagle Invests., 2012 Ohio 1433 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.34(H) — 2 cases
State ex rel. Squire v. Phipps, 2023 Ohio 3950 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
Winona Holdings, Inc. v. Duffey, 2014 Ohio 519 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.34(J) — 2 cases
State ex rel. Cuyahoga Cty. v. Jones Lang LaSalle Great Lakes Corp. Real Est. Partners, L.L.C., 2017 Ohio 4066 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
Rauh v. Zheng (N.D. Ohio 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.34(K) — 3 cases
Northpoint Props., Inc. v. Petticord, 901 N.E.2d 869 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008).
Iron Workers Local Union No. 17 Ins. Fund v. Philip Morris Inc., 29 F. Supp. 2d 801 (N.D. Ohio 1998). “In Ohio Rev.Code § 2923.34, the Ohio General Assembly provided for a civil action for violation of Ohio Rev.”
Huegemann v. VanBakel, 2014 Ohio 1888 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.34(M)(1) — 1 case
Barton v. Cuyahoga Cty, 2020 Ohio 6994 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “In March 2016, appellants filed an amended complaint against the County for “unlawful retention of forfeited funds” pursuant to “R.C. 2923.34 and/or 2981.06,” replevin, and conversion.”
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.