2017 ORS 166.730¹
Authority of investigative agency
  • compelling compliance with subpoena

(1) If, pursuant to the civil enforcement provisions of ORS 166.725 (Remedies for violation of ORS 166.720), an investigative agency has reason to believe that a person or other enterprise has engaged in, or is engaging in, activity in violation of ORS 166.715 (Definitions for ORS 166.715 to 166.735) to 166.735 (Short title), the investigative agency may administer oaths or affirmations, subpoena witnesses or documents or other material, and collect evidence pursuant to the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure.

(2) If matter that the investigative agency seeks to obtain by the subpoena is located outside the state, the person or enterprise subpoenaed may make such matter available to the investigative agency or its representative for examination at the place where such matter is located. The investigative agency may designate representatives, including officials of the jurisdiction in which the matter is located, to inspect the matter on its behalf and may respond to similar requests from officials of other jurisdictions.

(3) Upon failure of a person or enterprise, without lawful excuse, to obey a subpoena, and after reasonable notice to such person or enterprise, the investigative agency may apply to the circuit court for the judicial district in which such person or enterprise resides, is found or transacts business for an order compelling compliance. [1981 c.769 §6; 1983 c.715 §3]

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.