2017 ORS 166.720¹
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.

(c) The court shall hold a hearing to determine the amount of the fine authorized by paragraph (b) of this subsection.

(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 (Definitions for ORS 166.715 to 166.735) (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

To withstand demurrer on ground of lack of specificity, indict­ment under RICO Act must particularly describe underlying predicate of­fenses. State v. Kincaid, 78 Or App 23, 714 P2d 624 (1986)

Convic­tion for rack­et­eering and con­vic­­tions for predicate of­fenses do not merge even though based on same con­duct. State v. Blossom, 88 Or App 75, 744 P2d 281 (1987), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Wallock/Hara, 110 Or App 109, 821 P2d 435 (1991), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Gleason, 141 Or App 485, 919 P2d 1184 (1996), Sup Ct review denied

Where alleged predicate acts of mail and wire fraud did not satisfy “pattern of rack­et­eering ac­tivity” require­ment for federal ac­tion under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organiza­tions Act (RICO), defendants’ mo­tions for summary judg­ment were granted and pendant state claims dismissed. Casablanca Produc­tions v. Pace Intern. Research, 697 F Supp 1563 (D. Or. 1988)

To show individual is “enterprise,” more evidence is re­quired than merely of individual com­mit­ting multiple crimes with others and some connec­tion between individual and organiza­tion must be contemplated. State v. Cheek, 100 Or App 501, 786 P2d 1305 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

Plaintiff is not re­quired to es­tab­lish “continuity,” of predicate acts over extended period or threat of future rack­et­eering ac­tivity, in pro­ceed­ing under this sec­tion. Computer Concepts, Inc. v. Brandt, 310 Or 706, 801 P2d 800 (1990)

To es­tab­lish ORICO claim, plaintiff must allege and prove that plaintiff was injured by defendant’s use or invest­ment of income derived from rack­et­eering, rather than predicate acts of rack­et­eering. Beckett v. Computer Career Institute, Inc., 120 Or App 143, 852 P2d 840 (1993)

Stockholder lacks standing to assert claims for harm derivative of harm to corpora­tion. Loewen v. Galligan, 130 Or App 222, 882 P2d 104 (1994)

Exclusive administrative remedy to resolve disputes over amount of submitted billings did not preclude claim alleging that submitted billings were pattern of fraudulent behavior. SAIF v. Anderson/DeShaw, 321 Or 139, 894 P2d 1152 (1995)

Entity can be “enterprise” without sharing common purpose with defendant of engaging in crim­i­nal ac­tivity. State v. Gleason, 141 Or App 485, 919 P2d 1184 (1996), Sup Ct review denied

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)

Terms “associated with” and “participate” are not unconstitu­tionally vague given context provided by other statutory terms. State v. Harris, 159 Or App 553, 980 P2d 1132 (1999), Sup Ct review denied

Require­ment that indict­ment under ORICO Act must particularly describe underlying predicate of­fenses applies to both completed and inchoate ORICO crimes. State v. Stout, 281 Or App 263, 382 P3d 591 (2016), Sup Ct review allowed

Notes of Decisions

RICO statutes are not indefinite or vague. State v. Romig, 73 Or App 780, 700 P2d 293 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

Oregon RICO statutes should be interpreted consistently with federal RICO statute, on which Oregon statute is based. Ahern v. Gaussoin, 611 F Supp 1465 (1985)

Oregon RICO statute would be interpreted in same manner as parallel. Schnitzer v. Oppenheimer and Co., Inc., 633 F Supp 92 (1985)

Plaintiffs’ asser­tions that defendant con­ducted a pattern of rack­et­eering ac­tivity that included numerous instances of mail, wire and securities fraud was sufficient to state a claim under RICO. Securities Investor Protec­tion Corp. v. Poirier, 653 F Supp 63 (1986)

These sec­tions allow multiple con­vic­­tions and consecutive sen­tences for rack­et­eering and predicate of­fenses. State v. Blossom, 88 Or App 75, 744 P2d 281 (1987), Sup Ct review denied

Because Oregon statute was modeled after federal statutes, 18 U.S.C. 1961 to 1968, federal cases interpreting federal statute are persuasive in interpreting intent of Oregon legislature. State v. Blossom, 88 Or App 75, 744 P2d 281 (1987), Sup Ct review denied

Invest­ment companies’ failure to adequately supervise their of­fi­cer or agent could impose liability for sec­ondary viola­tions of securities laws. Pincetich v. Jeanfreau, 699 F Supp 1469 (D. Or. 1988)

Law Review Cita­tions

18 WLR 1 (1982)

Chapter 166

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 427-637 (1972); 69 OLR 169 (1990)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 166—Offenses Against Public Order; Firearms and Other Weapons; Racketeering, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors166.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 166, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano166.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
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.