Georgia RICO Predicate Acts vs. Federal RICO

Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and its federal counterpart share a name and a general structure, but the list of crimes that can serve as a predicate act supporting a RICO charge differs significantly between the two statutes. Understanding that difference clarifies why Georgia prosecutors often reach for the state RICO statute even when conduct might also support a federal charge.

Georgia’s Predicate Offense List

O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(9) defines “racketeering activity” by reference to a long list of enumerated Georgia criminal offenses, roughly forty in number. The list spans drug offenses, homicide, arson, burglary, forgery, theft, robbery, prostitution and pandering, obscenity, bribery, witness intimidation, perjury, evidence tampering, commercial gambling, certain firearm offenses, securities violations, credit card crimes, computer crimes, kidnapping, false imprisonment, terroristic threats, hijacking of vehicles or aircraft, insurance fraud, payday loan usury, deceptive commercial e-mail, and residential mortgage fraud, among others. The breadth of this list is one of the defining features of Georgia RICO.

Attempting, Soliciting, or Coercing Also Counts

Georgia’s statute goes a step further than simply listing completed offenses. Attempting, soliciting, coercing, or intimidating another person to commit any of the enumerated predicate offenses also qualifies as racketeering activity under § 16-14-3(9). This is a meaningful expansion that has no direct equivalent in the federal predicate list, and it means conduct that never results in a completed underlying offense can still support a Georgia RICO charge.

The Federal Predicate List Is Narrower

By contrast, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) limits the state-law offenses that can serve as federal RICO predicates to a small number of categories, generally counted as nine: murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, and dealing in controlled substances. Federal RICO predicates also include a list of specified federal offenses. For state-law crimes specifically, the federal predicate catalog is substantially narrower than Georgia’s roughly forty-offense list.

Pattern Requirements Compared

Both statutes require more than a single predicate act before a pattern of racketeering activity exists. Georgia requires at least two predicate acts, and federal RICO under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5) similarly requires at least two acts of racketeering activity. The two statutes differ in how far back those acts can be spread and still count toward a pattern. Federal law allows prosecutors a ten-year look-back window under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5), while Georgia’s statute is generally cited as using a shorter, four-year look-back period under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(8). A shorter look-back window, paired with Georgia’s broader predicate list, is part of why Georgia’s pattern requirement is often viewed as more readily satisfied than the federal version.

No Interstate Commerce Requirement in Georgia

Federal RICO, found at 18 U.S.C. § 1962, requires that the enterprise affect interstate or foreign commerce. Georgia RICO contains no equivalent jurisdictional requirement. That absence means Georgia RICO can reach purely intrastate conduct, conduct confined entirely within the state, that might not independently satisfy federal RICO’s commerce-nexus element.

Dual Prosecution Is Possible

Because Georgia RICO and federal RICO are separate statutory schemes administered by separate sovereigns, a single course of conduct can in some circumstances generate both a Georgia RICO charge and a federal RICO charge arising from the same underlying acts. Whether both prosecutions may proceed against the same person for the same conduct is governed by double jeopardy principles that apply across the dual sovereignty doctrine, a separate body of law beyond the predicate-act comparison addressed here.

Why the Comparison Matters

The practical significance of these differences is structural rather than tactical. Georgia’s broader predicate list, its inclusion of attempt and solicitation, and its lack of an interstate commerce requirement combine to make Georgia RICO available in a wider range of factual circumstances than federal RICO. That breadth is one reason Georgia RICO has become a frequently used charging tool in state prosecutions involving organized or repeated criminal conduct, including white-collar schemes that might not independently meet federal jurisdictional thresholds.

This article provides general information about Georgia law and is not legal advice. Consult a licensed Georgia attorney about a specific situation.