Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.720 (2026)

Racketeering activity unlawful; penalties

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

166.720 Racketeering activity unlawful; penalties. (1) It is unlawful for any person who has knowingly received any proceeds derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through the collection of an unlawful debt to use or invest, whether directly or indirectly, any part of such proceeds, or the proceeds derived from the investment or use thereof, 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.

(2) It is unlawful for any person, through a pattern of racketeering activity or through the collection of an unlawful debt, to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any real property or enterprise.

(3) It is unlawful for any person employed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity or the collection of an unlawful debt.

(4) It is unlawful for any person to conspire or endeavor to violate any of the provisions of subsections (1), (2) or (3) of this section.

(5)(a) Any person convicted of engaging in activity in violation of the provisions of subsections (1) to (4) of this section is guilty of a Class A felony.

(b) In lieu of a fine otherwise authorized by law, any person convicted of engaging in conduct in violation of the provisions of subsections (1) to (4) of this section, through which the person derived a pecuniary value, or by which the person caused personal injury or property damage or other loss, may be sentenced to pay a fine that does not exceed three times the gross value gained or three times the gross loss caused, whichever is greater, plus court costs and the costs of investigation and prosecution, reasonably incurred.

(d) For the purposes of paragraph (b) of this subsection, “pecuniary value” means:

(A) Anything of value in the form of money, a negotiable instrument, a commercial interest or anything else the primary significance of which is economic advantage; or

(B) Any other property or service that has a value in excess of $100.

(6) An allegation of a pattern of racketeering activity is sufficient if it contains substantially the following:

(a) A statement of the acts constituting each incident of racketeering activity in ordinary and concise language, and in a manner that enables a person of common understanding to know what is intended;

(b) A statement of the relation to each incident of racketeering activity that the conduct was committed on or about a designated date, or during a designated period of time;

(c) A statement, in the language of ORS 166.715 (4) or other ordinary and concise language, designating which distinguishing characteristic or characteristics interrelate the incidents of racketeering activity; and

(d) A statement that the incidents alleged were not isolated. [1981 c.769 §§3,4; 1997 c.789 §2]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 78 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: State v. Stout, 415 P.3d 567 (Or. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Stout, 415 P.3d 567 (Or. 2018). · cites it 57× “It is, thus, unsurprising that, when the legislature drafted subsection (6) to address the pleading requirements for ORICO generally, it did so using verb tenses that are appropriate for completed incidents of racketeering activity.”

State v. Stout, 382 P.3d 591 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 69× “720(6) describes specific pleading requirements for certain ORICO allegations: “An allegation of a pattern of racketeering activity is sufficient if it contains substantially the following: “(a) A statement of the acts constituting each incident of racketeering activity in…”

Oregon Educ. Ass'n v. Parks, 291 P.3d 789 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 22× “ORS 166.720. Plaintiffs, who are public employee unions, brought this ORICO action against defendants, alleging a pattern of racketeering activity and seeking damages caused by defendants’ racketeering activities in connection with placing certain measures on the statewide…”

State v. Walker, 333 P.3d 316 (Or. 2014). · cites it 6× “Defendant was charged in Clatsop County with one count of racketeering, ORS 166.720(3), and one count of theft in the first degree, ORS 164.”

Kotera v. Daioh Int'l U.S.A. Corp., 40 P.3d 506 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 11× “Plaintiff alleged claims under each of the four subsections of ORS 166.720. 19 However, plaintiff did not distinguish among the four subsections of ORS 166.”

Am. Fed'n of Teachers-Oregon v. Oregon Taxpayers United Pac, 145 P.3d 1111 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 15× “Observing that the plaintiffs' claim was based on the language of ORS 166.720 and that that language was analogous to the federal RICO act, we followed the lead of federal courts who had considered similar questions and held that, if the claim was derivative, then the aggrieved…”

State v. Cheek, 786 P.2d 1305 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 16× “Defendant was charged with violating ORS 166.720(3), which provides: "It is unlawful for any person employed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity or the collection…”

Riddle v. Eugene Lodge No. 357 of the Benevolent & Prot. Order of Elks of the United States, 768 P.2d 917 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 12× “At the pretrial hearing, defendants moved to dismiss on that ground and argued, inter alia, that the pleadings fail to show a distinction between the “enterprise” and the “person,” 5 as required by ORS 166.720. 6 The trial court agreed. 7 The judgment of dismissal was entered on…”

Kilminster v. Day Mgmt. Corp., 919 P.2d 474 (Or. 1996). · cites it 4× “" [12] ORS 166.720 provides in part: "(1) It is unlawful for any person who has knowingly received any proceeds derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through the collection of an unlawful debt to use or invest, whether directly or…”

State v. Charlesworth, 951 P.2d 153 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 5× “The indictment charged Charlesworth with four counts of racketeering in violation of the Oregon Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (ORICO), ORS 166.720(2), 166.720(3); four counts of conspiracy to commit racketeering, ORS 161.”

Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Williamette, Inc. v. Am. Coalition of Life Activists, 945 F. Supp. 1355 (D. Or. 1996). · cites it 6× “§ 1962 (d) by conspiring to violate RICO as a result of agreeing to the commission of two or more of the predicate acts; 6 (5) Defendants violated ORICO, ORS 166.720(3), for the same reasons evinced under Plaintiffs’ federal RICO claims; 7 (6) Defendants violated ORS 166.”

State v. Kelly, 328 P.3d 757 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 7× “Defendant, owner and president of a construction company, challenges a judgment of conviction for racketeering, ORS 166.720(3), under an indictment that alleged multiple theft- and fraud-related predicate offenses stemming from defendant’s procurement and misuse of…”

Show all 78 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.720(1) — 19 cases

Am. Fed'n of Teachers-Oregon v. Oregon Taxpayers United Pac, 145 P.3d 1111 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “Observing that the plaintiffs' claim was based on the language of ORS 166.720 and that that language was analogous to the federal RICO act, we followed the lead of federal courts who had considered similar questions and held that, if the claim was derivative, then the aggrieved…”

State v. Stout, 415 P.3d 567 (Or. 2018). “It is, thus, unsurprising that, when the legislature drafted subsection (6) to address the pleading requirements for ORICO generally, it did so using verb tenses that are appropriate for completed incidents of racketeering activity.”

Kilminster v. Day Mgmt. Corp., 919 P.2d 474 (Or. 1996). “" [12] ORS 166.720 provides in part: "(1) It is unlawful for any person who has knowingly received any proceeds derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through the collection of an unlawful debt to use or invest, whether directly or…”

Kotera v. Daioh Int'l U.S.A. Corp., 40 P.3d 506 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “Plaintiff alleged claims under each of the four subsections of ORS 166.720. 19 However, plaintiff did not distinguish among the four subsections of ORS 166.”

State v. Ortega-Gonsalez, 404 P.3d 1081 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.720(2) — 8 cases

State v. Bruce Lincoln Butterfield, 874 P.2d 1339 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

State v. Romig, 700 P.2d 293 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).

State v. Charlesworth, 951 P.2d 153 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “The indictment charged Charlesworth with four counts of racketeering in violation of the Oregon Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (ORICO), ORS 166.720(2), 166.720(3); four counts of conspiracy to commit racketeering, ORS 161.”

Oregon Educ. Ass'n v. Parks, 291 P.3d 789 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “ORS 166.720. Plaintiffs, who are public employee unions, brought this ORICO action against defendants, alleging a pattern of racketeering activity and seeking damages caused by defendants’ racketeering activities in connection with placing certain measures on the statewide…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.720(3) — 39 cases

State v. Walker, 333 P.3d 316 (Or. 2014). “Defendant was charged in Clatsop County with one count of racketeering, ORS 166.720(3), and one count of theft in the first degree, ORS 164.”

State v. Cheek, 786 P.2d 1305 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “Defendant was charged with violating ORS 166.720(3), which provides: "It is unlawful for any person employed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity or the collection…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.720(4) — 6 cases

State v. Stout, 382 P.3d 591 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “720(6) describes specific pleading requirements for certain ORICO allegations: “An allegation of a pattern of racketeering activity is sufficient if it contains substantially the following: “(a) A statement of the acts constituting each incident of racketeering activity in…”

Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Williamette, Inc. v. Am. Coalition of Life Activists, 945 F. Supp. 1355 (D. Or. 1996). “§ 1962 (d) by conspiring to violate RICO as a result of agreeing to the commission of two or more of the predicate acts; 6 (5) Defendants violated ORICO, ORS 166.720(3), for the same reasons evinced under Plaintiffs’ federal RICO claims; 7 (6) Defendants violated ORS 166.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.720(5)(a) — 1 case

State Accident Ins. Fund v. Anderson, 894 P.2d 1152 (Or. 1995).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.720(6) — 6 cases

State v. Kelly, 328 P.3d 757 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “Defendant, owner and president of a construction company, challenges a judgment of conviction for racketeering, ORS 166.720(3), under an indictment that alleged multiple theft- and fraud-related predicate offenses stemming from defendant’s procurement and misuse of…”

State v. Holloway, 418 P.3d 1 (Or. 2018).

State v. Holloway, 383 P.3d 967 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.720(6)(a) — 3 cases

State v. Holloway, 383 P.3d 967 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.720(6)(b) — 2 cases

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.720(6)(c) — 2 cases

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.