Connecticut Statutes

§ 53-395 — Prohibited activities.

Connecticut § 53-395
JurisdictionConnecticut
Title 53Crimes
Ch. 949cCorrupt Organizations and Racketeering Activity Act

This text of Connecticut § 53-395 (Prohibited activities.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-395 (2026).

Text

(a)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.
(b)It is unlawful for any person, through a pattern of racketeering activity or through the collection of an unlawful debt, to receive anything of value or to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise or real property.
(c)It is unlawful for any person employed by, or associate

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lewis v. Guardian Loan Company
(D. Connecticut, 2019)

Legislative History

(P.A. 82-343, S. 3; P.A. 94-211.) History: P.A. 94-211 added Subsec. (d) re speech, conduct or association protected by the state or federal constitution. Cited. 206 C. 421; 229 C. 479; 238 C. 692. Cited. 28 CA 306; 43 CA 555. Subsec. (b): Subsec. requires proof of an enterprise; under Subsec., an unchartered association in fact enterprise does not require proof of an ascertainable structure separate from that inherent in the pattern of racketeering activity with which defendant is charged. 297 C. 66. Subsec. (c): Proof of two separate cocaine sales did not establish that defendant and his two confederates operated as a continuing unit pursuant to an overall scheme in which they depended on each other for the accomplishment of a common, mutually beneficial purpose. 156 CA 256; judgment affirmed in part, see 325 C. 272.

Nearby Sections

15
View on official source ↗

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Connecticut § 53-395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/statute/ct/53-395.