ORS 166.735¹

Short title

• • construction

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)

Law Review Cita­tions

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