Laws and Statutes

OFFICIAL CODE OF GEORGIA ANNOTATED

TITLE 16-Crimes and Offenses (Chs. 1 – 17)

CHAPTER 14-Racketter Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (§§16-14-1 to 16-14-15)

§16-14-4. RICO Prohibited activities.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person, through a pattern of racketeering activity or proceeds derived therefrom, to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise, real property, or personal property of any nature, including money.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise to conduct or participate in, directly or indirectly, such enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.

(c) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire or endeavor to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a) or (b) of this Code section. A person violates this subsection when:

(1) He or she together with one or more persons conspires to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a) or (b) of this Code section and any one or more of such persons commits any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy; or

(2) He or she endeavors to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a) or (b) of this Code section and commits any overt act to effect the object of the endeavor.

Annotations

Legislative intent as to scope. —

Legislature intended to subject to the coverage of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute two crimes, included in the statute as designated predicate acts, which are part of the same scheme, without the added burden of showing that the defendant would continue the conduct or had been guilty of like conduct before the incidents charged as a RICO violation. Dover v. State, 192 Ga. App. 429, 385 S.E.2d417, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 1056 (1989).

Predicate acts. —

When a complaint alleged that the defendant conducted an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, the requisite predicate acts for showing a “pattern of racketeering activity” were set forth in detail in the complaint, and the complaint further alleged that these offenses were not committed as an occasional practice but were part of a systematic and ongoing pattern over a number of years concealed by a scheme of subterfuge and intimidation, the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings or for summary judgment. Larson v. Smith, 194 Ga. App.698, 391 S.E.2d 686, 1990 Ga. App. LEXIS 295 (1990).

Commonality satisfied. —

In RICO cases, an alleged scheme to defraud which affects a class of people is a common question of law and/or fact, regardless of the characteristics of the scheme’s intended victims. Buford v. H & R Block, Inc., 168 F.R.D. 340, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS11058 (S.D. Ga. 1996), aff’d sub nom. Jones v. H & R Block Tax Servs., 117 F.3d 1433,1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 15148 (11th Cir. 1997).

Lesser included offense charge not warranted. —

As a defendant was only charged with racketeering, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4(a), based on the predicate offense of forgery, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-9-1, the defendant’s requested jury instruction of a lesser-included offense of forgery was properly denied by the trial court; if the jury had not found a “pattern of racketeering activity” under former paragraph (8)(a) of O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3, the jury could not have convicted the defendant of forgery. Redford v. State, 309 Ga. App. 118, 710 S.E.2d 197,2011 Ga. App. LEXIS 322 (2011).

Defendant’s indictment and sentence in a prior case were admissible,

where such evidence, when combined with other evidence introduced at trial, showed the requisite pattern of racketeering activity. Brown v. State, 191 Ga. App. 76, 381 S.E.2d101, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 486 (1989).

Indictment sufficiently specific. —

Indictment for criminal racketeering alleged the offense with sufficient specificity when the indictment set forth specific timber transactions involving specific persons, places, acreages, deals, and owners. Grant v. State, 227 Ga. App. 88, 488 S.E.2d 79, 1997 Ga App. LEXIS 1152 (1997); Adams v. State, 231 Ga. App. 279, 499 S.E.2d 105.

Indictment charging a conspiracy to violate Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-1 et seq., was sufficient because there was no requirement that the state prove that a defendant personally committed the underlying predicate offenses personally. Pasha v. State, 273 Ga. App. 788, 616 S.E.2d 135, 2005Ga. App. LEXIS 616 (2005), cert. denied, No. S05C1757, 2005 Ga. LEXIS 671 (Ga. Oct.3, 2005).

Evidence sufficient for conviction. —

There was sufficient evidence to support a defendant’s conviction under the Georgia Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-4-1 et seq., as contrary to the defendant’s contention that the crimes were isolated incidents, the acts involving the abduction and murder of a store manager and various thefts and interrelated crimes set forth at least two incidents of racketeering activity that have the same or similar intents, results, accomplices, victims, or methods of commission or otherwise were interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and were not isolated incidents. The state established a number of interrelated incidents of racketeering activity that had the same intents and results (monetary gain) and the same accomplices (the defendant and other members of the group) and the evidence also established that those were not isolated incidents, but a continuing pattern of criminal activity. Overton v. State, 295 Ga. App. 223, 671 S.E.2d 507, 2008 Ga. App. LEXIS1358 (2008), cert. denied, No. S09C0654, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 212 (Ga. Apr. 20, 2009).

Defendant’s knowledge of all aspects of the enterprise not required in RICO action. —

In a RICO case, the state was not required to show that each defendant in the enterprise had full knowledge of all facets and elements of the enterprise and all its members or actors; the trial court did not err in charging the jury on deliberate ignorance, when one defendant’s suspicions of the scheme to acquire unoccupied homes by living in the homes and claiming adverse possession. Lowery v. State, 347 Ga. App.26, 815 S.E.2d 625, 2018 Ga. App. LEXIS 435 (2018).

[End]

DemocracyWARS.com is THE HOME for the 100 Million+ ‘homeless’, Centrist, Independent, Non-aligned, Unaffiliated, Center-Right, Center-Left, and Swing voters suppressed for decades by the extreme right and left of our polarized two-party political system.

It is a centrist-partisan educational and advocacy project for the 100M+ Centrist, Independent, Unaffiliated and Homeless voters outraged by the January 6, 2021, attempted Trump Coup, and other wrongs by the extremist Left and Right, against our government and democracy – and ourselves. We are never beholden to the extremes of the Red or Blue, but unite as Centrists in our own PURPLE PATRIOT ARMY!!

Please Support our Mission to Investigate, Educate and Advocate for the Centrist majority of voters who have been ignored and lied to for so long by the extremist LEFT AND THE RIGHT.

Join our PURPLE PATRIOT ARMY!! The DemocracyWARS Mission and Fight: Wrongs against us will be Righted. Our Rights will be Restored. The Criminals Convicted. ATTACK! ATTACK! ATTACK! Never Give Up. Never surrender to the political criminals again. The 2022 midterm PURPLE POWER election success was just the first skirmish in the long battle to 2024 ahead. Please join our Purple Patriot Army and Support Our Mission!!