2015 ORS 164.075¹
Theft by extortion

This section is amended
Effective January 1, 2017
Relating to notario fraud; creating new provisions; and amending ORS 131.125, 131.602, 162.235, 164.015, 164.025, 164.035, 164.075, 194.315, 194.340 and 701.098.

(1) A person commits theft by extortion when the person compels or induces another to deliver property to the person or to a third person by instilling in the other a fear that, if the property is not so delivered, the actor or a third person will in the future:

(a) Cause physical injury to some person;

(b) Cause damage to property;

(c) Engage in other conduct constituting a crime;

(d) Accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against the person;

(e) Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule;

(f) Cause or continue a strike, boycott or other collective action injurious to some person’s business, except that such conduct is not considered extortion when the property is demanded or received for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act;

(g) Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another’s legal claim or defense;

(h) Use or abuse the position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely; or

(i) Inflict any other harm that would not benefit the actor.

(2) Theft by extortion is a Class B felony. [1971 c.743 §127; 1987 c.158 §27; 2007 c.71 §48]

Notes of Decisions

Where store manager told police about bomb threat and they di­rected him to give defendant's accomplice marked bills, it was factual determina­tion for jury whether manager was in part motivated by fear of explosion in giving accomplice money. State v. Marsh, 43 Or App 571, 603 P2d 1212 (1979), Sup Ct review denied

Where, at direc­tion of police of­fi­cer, victim offered money to defendant to obtain the return of stolen purse, defendant's sub­se­quent threat to forge checks on victim's bank account did not motivate the pre-arranged exchange and so did not constitute theft by extor­tion. State v. Gholston, 55 Or App 790, 639 P2d 1302 (1982), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant threatened to discard cellular phone before victim agreed to pay for its return, defendant was properly convicted of theft by extor­tion. State v. Davis, 115 Or App 711, 839 P2d 283 (1992)

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 432, 525-536 (1972); 10 WLJ 156 (1974)

Chapter 164

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 427-637 (1972)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 164—Offenses Against Property, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors164.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 164, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano164.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.