Definitions for ORS 166.715 to 166.735
Source:
Section 166.715 — Definitions for ORS 166.715 to 166.735, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors166.html
.
Notes of Decisions
Where defendant directed group of young men from broken families over four-year period to commit 28 different crimes, planned crimes, instructed them on how to commit them and provided men with means for commission, jury was entitled to infer that defendant functioned as an “enterprise.” State v. Cheek, 100 Or App 501, 786 P2d 1305 (1990), Sup Ct review denied
Plaintiff need not establish conviction of crime for predicate criminal conduct in order to allege “racketeering activity” under this section. Computer Concepts, Inc. v. Brandt, 310 Or 706, 801 P2d 800 (1990), Sup Ct review denied
“Enterprise” refers generally to vehicle for committing unlawful pattern of racketeering activity. Penuel v. Titan/Value Equities Group, Inc., 127 Or App 195, 872 P2d 28 (1994), Sup Ct review denied
“Isolated incidents” refers to relationship among predicate acts, including relationship to same enterprise, not to temporal occurrence. Penuel v. Titan/Value Equities Group, Inc., 127 Or App 195, 872 P2d 28 (1994), Sup Ct review denied
Securities law liability based solely on status under ORS 59.115 as control person does not constitute criminal conduct that can serve as predicate offense for Oregon Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act liability. Computer Concepts, Inc. v. Brandt, 137 Or App 572, 905 P2d 1177 (1995)
Reference to federal statute defining racketeering activity refers to version of federal statute existing at time this section was adopted and does not include subsequent amendments to federal statute. State v. Charlesworth/Parks, 151 Or App 100, 951 P2d 153 (1997), Sup Ct review denied
Prohibition in ORS 419A.190 against adult court action “based on” or “arising out of” juvenile offense bars use of offense as incident of racketeering activity. State v. Harris, 157 Or App 119, 967 P2d 909 (1998)
Where indictment for racketeering states particular circumstances of enterprise and of each predicate offense, statutory wording is sufficient statement of nexus between predicate offenses. State v. Fair, 326 Or 485, 953 P2d 383 (1998)
Under pre-1997 version of statute, prosecutor knowledge of racketeering pattern at time of prosecution for second offense would bar subsequent Oregon Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act charge based on that offense. State v. Lyons, 161 Or App 355, 985 P2d 204 (1999)
Multiple separate incidents throughout single escrow transaction can form “pattern of racketeering activity” throughout single escrow transaction. Willms v. AmeriTitle, Inc., 314 Or App 687, 499 P3d 79 (2021)