Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 7-15-2 (2026)

Prohibited activities

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) It is unlawful for any person who has knowingly received any income derived directly or indirectly from a racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt, to directly or indirectly use or invest any part of that income, or the proceeds of that income in the acquisition of an interest in, or the establishment or operation of any enterprise.

(b) It is unlawful for any person through a racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to directly or indirectly acquire or maintain any interest in or control of any enterprise.

(c) It is unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise to conduct or participate in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise through racketeering activity or collection of an unlawful debt.

(d) Provided, that a purchase of securities on the open market for purposes of investment and without the intention of controlling or participating in the control of the issuer, or of assisting another to do so, is not unlawful under this section if the securities of the issuer held by the purchaser, the members of his immediate family, and his or her or their accomplices in a racketeering activity or the collection of an unlawful debt after the purchase do not amount in the aggregate to one percent (1%) of the outstanding securities of any one class, and do not, either in law or in fact, confer the power to elect one or more directors of the issuer.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case: Zarrella v. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co., 824 A.2d 1249 (R.I. 2003).
Zarrella v. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co., 824 A.2d 1249 (R.I. 2003). · cites it 4× “IV Claims Dismissed via Judgment as a Matter of Law The plaintiff next argues that the trial justice erred by granting Minnesota Mutual’s Rule 50 motion on equitable estoppel, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, bad faith, G.L.1956 § 7-15-2 of the Rhode Island…”
Sheehan v. Richardson, 315 B.R. 226 (D.R.I. 2004). · cites it 6× “Laws § 6-26-2 (2000); § 7-15-2 (1979). Therefore, the Bankruptcy Judge was correct in concluding that the Trustee could recover the $150,000 paid by Swain with Newport Creamery funds to Sheehan and Connell and treble damages of $450,000 against them for violation of the state…”
Roma Constr. Co. & Peter Zanni v. Ralph R. Arusso, 96 F.3d 566 (1st Cir. 1996). · cites it 2× “§ 1367 , of state RICO claims pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 7-15-2, 7-15-8 and 9-1-2.”
State v. Brown, 486 A.2d 595 (R.I. 1985). · cites it 3× “Section 7-15-2 provides in pertinent part: “Prohibited, activities.”
Boyajian v. DeFusco (In Re Giorgio), 62 B.R. 853 (Bankr. D.R.I. 1986). · cites it 3× “LAWS § 7-15-2, and that he is entitled to recover damages in accordance with R.”
Keesling v. Beegle, 880 N.E.2d 1202 (Ind. 2008). · cites it 2× “25, § 971b(c) (2004); R.I. Gen. Laws § 7-15-2(c) (2007); Utah Code Ann.”
Nat'l Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. Regine, 795 F. Supp. 59 (D.R.I. 1992). · cites it 2× “§ 7-15-2, the plaintiff must prove that the defendants (1) committed a racketeering activity and (2) invested the proceeds in the establishment, conduct, or operation of an enterprise.”
Boyajian v. DeFusco (In Re Giorgio), 81 B.R. 766 (D.R.I. 1988). · cites it 3× “Section 7-15-2, R.I.Gen. Laws includes as prohibited activities: (c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any en *775 terprise to conduct or participate in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise through racketeering activity or collection of…”
Nat'l Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. Regine, 749 F. Supp. 401 (D.R.I. 1990). · cites it 2× “R.I.Gen.Laws § 7-15-2 (1985). Racketeering activity is defined under Rhode Island law to mean any act or threat involving a variety of criminal offenses including murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, larceny and prostitution.”
State v. Porto, 591 A.2d 791 (R.I. 1991). “1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 7-15-2(c) (Rhode Island RICO statute) and G.”
Ret. Bd. of Employees' Ret. Sys. v. DiPrete, 845 A.2d 270 (R.I. 2004). “DiPrete apparently is referring to § 7-15-3(a)(3), which provides that “the value of the property forfeited shall not exceed the sum of the money invested in violation of § 7-15-2(a) plus the appreciated value of the money.”
Roma Const. Co., Inc. v. aRUSSO, 906 F. Supp. 78 (D.R.I. 1995). “Plaintiffs State Law Claims The state law claims in Count IV-VI, Rhode Island RICO statutes §§ 7-15-2, 7-15-4 and R.I.G.L. § 9-1-2, are dismissed for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 7-15-2(a) — 4 cases
Sheehan v. Richardson, 315 B.R. 226 (D.R.I. 2004). “Laws § 6-26-2 (2000); § 7-15-2 (1979). Therefore, the Bankruptcy Judge was correct in concluding that the Trustee could recover the $150,000 paid by Swain with Newport Creamery funds to Sheehan and Connell and treble damages of $450,000 against them for violation of the state…”
Nat'l Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. Regine, 795 F. Supp. 59 (D.R.I. 1992). “§ 7-15-2, the plaintiff must prove that the defendants (1) committed a racketeering activity and (2) invested the proceeds in the establishment, conduct, or operation of an enterprise.”
Ret. Bd. of Employees' Ret. Sys. v. DiPrete, 845 A.2d 270 (R.I. 2004). “DiPrete apparently is referring to § 7-15-3(a)(3), which provides that “the value of the property forfeited shall not exceed the sum of the money invested in violation of § 7-15-2(a) plus the appreciated value of the money.”
Ret. Bd. of Employees'ret. Sys. v. Diprete, 845 A.2d 270 (R.I. 2004).
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 7-15-2(b) — 1 case
Zarrella v. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co., 824 A.2d 1249 (R.I. 2003). “IV Claims Dismissed via Judgment as a Matter of Law The plaintiff next argues that the trial justice erred by granting Minnesota Mutual’s Rule 50 motion on equitable estoppel, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, bad faith, G.L.1956 § 7-15-2 of the Rhode Island…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 7-15-2(c) — 5 cases
Roma Constr. Co. & Peter Zanni v. Ralph R. Arusso, 96 F.3d 566 (1st Cir. 1996). “§ 1367 , of state RICO claims pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 7-15-2, 7-15-8 and 9-1-2.”
Keesling v. Beegle, 880 N.E.2d 1202 (Ind. 2008). “25, § 971b(c) (2004); R.I. Gen. Laws § 7-15-2(c) (2007); Utah Code Ann.”
Boyajian v. DeFusco (In Re Giorgio), 62 B.R. 853 (Bankr. D.R.I. 1986). “LAWS § 7-15-2, and that he is entitled to recover damages in accordance with R.”
State v. Porto, 591 A.2d 791 (R.I. 1991). “1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 7-15-2(c) (Rhode Island RICO statute) and G.”
Boyajian v. DeFusco (In Re Giorgio), 81 B.R. 766 (D.R.I. 1988). “Section 7-15-2, R.I.Gen. Laws includes as prohibited activities: (c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any en *775 terprise to conduct or participate in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise through racketeering activity or collection of…”
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.