Federal and State RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Statutes Compared (From Techniques in the Investigation and Prosecution of Organized Crime, Volume Three, 1980 - See NCJ-93571)

• NCJ Number: 93581
• Author(s): D E Campbell; M A Roberts
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 83 pages
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/; NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

The text of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) is compared with those of the six States which have enacted RICO statutes and the three States in which RICO statutes are pending.

Abstract

Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Arizona, Florida, Rhode Island, Georgia, and Indiana have enacted RICO statutes, while such laws are pending in New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts. A wide variety of offenses are set forth under both the Federal and State definitions of racketeering activity. The Federal definition includes eight offenses chargeable under State law and some violations of the Federal code. Most of the State definitions include only State offenses. All of the State statutes use the Federal definition of enterprise. The Federal law requires two acts of racketeering activity; the more recent State laws explicitly require that these acts be related. Only five of the State statutes prohibit the collection of an unlawful debt. The State definitions of unlawful debt are similar to the Federal definition. The Federal law and two State laws define the term 'racketeering investigator.' Additional provisions pertain to racketeering investigation, documentary material, the definition of 'attorney general,' prohibited activities, criminal penalties, civil remedies, venue and process, expedition of actions, evidence, and civil investigative demand.