Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 772.103 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 772.103 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 772.103

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XLV
TORTS
Chapter 772
CIVIL REMEDIES FOR CRIMINAL PRACTICES
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 772.103
772.103 Prohibited activities.It is unlawful for any person:
(1) Who has with criminal intent received any proceeds derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of criminal 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.
(2) Through a pattern of criminal activity or through the collection of an unlawful debt, to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise or real property.
(3) Employed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity or the collection of an unlawful debt.
(4) To conspire or endeavor to violate any of the provisions of subsection (1), subsection (2), or subsection (3).
History.s. 3, ch. 86-277.

F.S. 772.103 on Google Scholar

F.S. 772.103 on Casetext

Amendments to 772.103


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 772.103
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 772.103.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

CONTINENTAL FUND, LLC, LLC, LLC, LLC, LLC, LLC, LLC LLC, v. ALBERTELLI, LLC, LLC, MFDC, LLC, CCR, LLC, US LLC, KMM LLC, L. L. C., 317 F. Supp. 3d 1124 (M.D. Fla. 2018)

. . . . § 772.103. But it "is informed by case law interpreting the federal RICO statute." Jones v. . . .

MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS v. LEWIS TEIN, P. L., 227 So. 3d 656 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . against the Tribe, alleging one count of civil remedies for criminal practices pursuant to section 772.103 . . . and Tein in a subsequent, related case for malicious prosecution and civil liability under section 772.103 . . .

ABSOLUTE ACTIVIST VALUE MASTER FUND LIMITED, v. DEVINE,, 233 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (M.D. Fla. 2017)

. . . convincing evidence that he or she has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s. 772.103 . . .

DAEDALUS CAPITAL LLC, v. VINECOMBE, LLC, S., 625 F. App'x 973 (11th Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 772.103(3)-(4); (2) fraud; (3) civil conspiracy; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; and (5) aiding and . . .

BURGESE v. STARWOOD HOTELS RESORTS WORLDWIDE, INC., 101 F. Supp. 3d 414 (D.N.J. 2015)

. . . . § 772.103(1)—(4). . . . convincing evidence that he or she has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s. 772.103 . . . Stat. § 772.103, and (2) an injury as a result of this violation. See Fla. Stat. § 772.104(1). . . .

PROU, v. GIARLA,, 62 F. Supp. 3d 1365 (S.D. Fla. 2014)

. . . . § 772.103(3)). . . .

ARTHUR, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NA,, 569 F. App'x 669 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 772.103. . . . Stat. § § 772.103-104. . . . Stat. § 772.103. . . .

CORCEL CORPORATION, INC. v. FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC. A A AKA A, 551 F. App'x 571 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 1962(d) (Counts 2 and 5); and (3) Florida RICO violations pursuant to Florida Statutes §§ 772.103 . . .

NAVAS, v. A. BRAND,, 130 So. 3d 766 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . . § 772.103, Fla. Stat. (2013). . . .

AL- GHENA INTERNATIONAL CORP. v. RADWAN, INC. LLC, 957 F. Supp. 2d 511 (D.N.J. 2013)

. . . . § 772.103. . . .

CORCEL CORPORATION, INC. v. FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC., 952 F. Supp. 2d 1293 (S.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . . § 1962(d) against Ferguson and LT (count two), Florida Statutes §§ 772.103-104 (“Florida RICO”) against . . . AKA (count four), U.S.C. § 1962(d) against Ferguson, LT and AKA (count five)- and Florida Statutes §§ 772.103 . . .

HORACE- MANASSE, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A. N. A., 521 F. App'x 782 (11th Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 772.103(3). . . .

In G. MOUTTET, EGE, v. G., 493 B.R. 640 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . . § 772.103(3) and Fla. Stat. § 772.103(4) of the Florida RICO statutes. . . . Stat. §§ 772.103(3) and 772.103(4) of the Florida RICO statutes. . . . Stat. § 772.103(3) the plaintiff must allege (1) conduct, (2) of an enterprise, (3) through a pattern . . . Stat. § 772.103(4) the plaintiff must allege 1) that a defendant agreed to the overall objective of the . . .

SOLTERO, v. SWIRE DEVELOPMENT SALES, INC. a a, 485 F. App'x 377 (11th Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 772.103(3) (civil RICO); Lance v. . . .

R. SPADARO, v. CITY OF MIRAMAR,, 855 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (S.D. Fla. 2012)

. . . . § 772.103 (Counts XIII-XV). Defendants have now filed motions to dismiss. II. DISCUSSION A. . . . Stat. § 772.103(2)-(4) against Defendants Pier-son, Mantesta, Guess, Fantigrassi, and Jenne. . . . Stat. § 772.103 (Counts XIII-XV) are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; e. . . . Stat. § 772.103(2) is against Defendants Pierson, Mantesta, Guess, and Fantigrassi only. . . . . Stat. § 772.103(2)-(4). . . .

EAGLETECH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. a v. BRYN MAWR INVESTMENT GROUP, INC. a k a a f k a a T. R. II, L. L. C. a a L. P. a L. P. LBC a k a LBC a S. A. J. E. a O a a L. P. a G. a a L. P. a a T. J., 79 So. 3d 855 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Section 772.103, Florida Statutes, makes it unlawful for any person “[t]hrough a pattern of criminal . . . indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity,” or to conspire to do so. § 772.103 . . . Section 772.104(1) provides civil remedies for violations of section 772.103. . . . To maintain an action under section 772.103, a plaintiff must plead the necessary predicate acts or continuity . . .

A. GIRGIS, v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., 733 F. Supp. 2d 835 (N.D. Ohio 2010)

. . . . § 772.102, 772.103. . . .

L. OGLESBEE, v. INDYMAC FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. LLC, MERS, 686 F. Supp. 2d 1313 (S.D. Fla. 2010)

. . . Section 772.103. . . .

ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO. v. PALTEROVICH,, 653 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (S.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . . §§ 772.103, 772.104. . . . treble damages upon a showing that they were injured by virtue of Defendants’ violation of section 772.103 . . . Stat. § 772.103. . . . The undersigned notes at the outset that section 772.103 is dubbed the “Florida RICO Act” because it . . . Stat. §§ 772.103(1) and (2). . . .

K. BORTELL, Jr. v. WHITE MOUNTAINS INSURANCE GROUP, LTD. MHG J. J. W. Jr. M., 2 So. 3d 1041 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . As a second cause of action, Bortell alleges violations of sections 772.104(1), 772.103(3), and 772.102 . . . convincing evidence that he or she has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s. 772.103 . . .

NATURAL ANSWERS, INC. a A. v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, a f. k. a. d. b. a., 529 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2008)

. . . . §§ 771.11, 772.103, 772.194, 812.014 and 812.081; (6) Common Law Trademark Disparagement; (7) Attempted . . .

A. WARD, v. K. NIERLICH,, 617 F. Supp. 2d 1226 (S.D. Fla. 2008)

. . . . § 772.103(1) [Count V], § 772.103(2) [Count VI], § 772.103(3) [Count VII], § 772.103(4) [Count VIII . . . Florida Statute § 772.103 is the Florida law that prohibits racketeering activity and is often referred . . .

DESIGN PALLETS, INC. v. GRAYROBINSON, P. A., 515 F. Supp. 2d 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2007)

. . . . § 772.103, the Florida RICO statute. . . .

M. ROGERS, C. v. P. NACCHIO, F. L., 241 F. App'x 602 (11th Cir. 2007)

. . . . § 772.103; the Colorado RICO statute, Colo.Rev.Stat. § 18-17-104; Colorado and Florida securities laws . . . Stat. § 772.103, states that it is unlawful for a person (1) to use or invest proceeds received through . . . Stat. § 772.103. . . . Because § 772.103 is patterned after the federal RICO statute, the Florida courts have looked to decisions . . . interpreting the federal statute in interpreting § 772.103. . . .

A. SIEGEL, v. I. WHITAKER, f k a I., 946 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . a complaint against Ginsberg and MLG alleging conversion, civil theft, RICO violations and Chapter 772.103 . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, v. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, BOCA RATON COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC. d b a a v., 420 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (S.D. Fla. 2005)

. . . . §§ 772.103(3) and 772.104 (Count III); conspiracy to violate Fla. . . . . § 772.103(4) (Count IV); violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Count V . . .

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, v. BOEING COMPANY,, 357 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (M.D. Fla. 2005)

. . . . § 1962(c) and § 772.103(3), Florida Statutes, by conducting and participating in the conduct of four . . . In Counts II and V, Lockheed Martin alleges that Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a) and § 772.103 . . . Finally, in Counts III and VI, Lockheed Martin alleges that Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) and § 772.103 . . . (4), Florida Statutes, by conspiring to violate §§ 1962(a) and 1962(c) and §§ 772.103(1) and 772.103( . . . Martin has already succeeded in alleging an enterprise against him in its claims under § 1962(c) and § 772.103 . . .

FLORIDA EVERGREEN FOLIAGE v. E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, a, 336 F. Supp. 2d 1239 (S.D. Fla. 2004)

. . . Plaintiff-Growers allege that DuPont engaged in criminal activity actionable pursuant to Florida Statutes § 772.103 . . . Plaintiff-Growers’ proposed Count II alleges that DuPont violated § 772.103(4), which prohibits any person . . . from conspiring to violate § 772.103(3). . . . Stat. § 772.103(3). . . .

JACKSON, v. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, a d. b. a. B., 372 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2004)

. . . Ch. 772.103(2), (3), and (4) (Counts II through VII); and conspiracy to defraud (Count IX). . . . Stat. § 772.103(2)-(4). . . . Stat. § 772.103(4). . . . Stat. § 772.103(4). This they have failed to do. . . . Stat. § 772.103(2) — (4). . . .

PALMAS Y BAMBU, S. A. a S. A. a v. E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS COMPANY, INC. a, 881 So. 2d 565 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . The nurseries sought to recover under section 772.103(3) of the Florida Statutes which makes it “unlawful . . . be deemed "clear and convincing evidence” of "injury by reason of violation of the provisions of s. 772.103 . . . Section 895.03(3) is the counterpart to section 772.103(3), which provides for civil remedies for criminal . . .

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, v. BOEING COMPANY,, 314 F. Supp. 2d 1198 (M.D. Fla. 2004)

. . . Conspiracy: 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) & Section 772.103(A), Fla. Stat. . . . Ers-kine and Branch’s motions to dismiss the section 772.103(3) claims against them are denied. D. . . . Section 772.103(b), Flo,- Stat. . . . Erskine and Branch add the argument that the conspiracy claim brought under section 772.103(4) of the . . . Florida Statutes is dependent on the section 772.103(3) Florida RICO Act claim so that the former should . . .

SUNSET HARBOUR NORTH CONDO. ASSOC. v. BEDZOW,, 842 So. 2d 200 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Section 772.103, Florida Statutes (2002), requires active participation in an enterprise, a much closer . . .

BETTS, v. ADVANCE AMERICA,, 213 F.R.D. 466 (M.D. Fla. 2003)

. . . . § 772.103. . . .

In BRIDGESTONE FIRESTONE, INC. TIRES PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. II, v. a a a M. J. v. a Co. a a a, 203 F. Supp. 2d 1032 (S.D. Ind. 2002)

. . . . § 772.103(3); Jackson v. . . .

JACKSON, v. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. d b a, 181 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (S.D. Fla. 2001)

. . . Stat. ch. 772.103(2), (3) and (4) (Counts V through VII); and conspiracy to defraud (Count IX). . . . Stat. ch. 772.103(2)-(4), which is often referred to as the Florida RICO Act. . . . Section 1962(d) of the federal law and the analogous chapter 772.103(4) of Florida law are violated by . . .

D. PIERCE, Jr. v. RITTER, CHUSID, BIVONIA COHEN, 133 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (S.D. Fla. 2001)

. . . . § 772.103(4) (the Florida RICO equivalent), and the other for professional negligence. . . .

FLORIDA SOFTWARE SYSTEMS, INC. a v. COLUMBIA HCA HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, a v. a a a R. M. A., 90 F. Supp. 1333 (M.D. Fla. 2000)

. . . . § 1962(d); (III) Pattern of Criminal Activity pursuant to Florida Statutes Title 45, § 772.103(3); . . . (IV) Conspiracy pursuant to Florida Statutes Title 45, § 772.103(4) (V) Breach of Fiduciary Duty by Gre-co . . .

L. STONE, v. WALL,, 734 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1999)

. . . sought money damages in a civil action under the specific authority of sections 772.102(1)(a)(12), 772.103 . . .

FLORIDA SOFTWARE SYSTEMS, INC. A v. COLUMBIA HCA HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, A v. A A R. M. A., 46 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (M.D. Fla. 1999)

. . . . § 1962(d); (III) Pattern of Criminal Activity pursuant to Florida Statutes Title 45, § 772.103(3); . . . (TV) Conspiracy pursuant to Florida Statutes Title 45, § 772.103(4); (V) Breach of Fiduciary Duty by . . . Count HI: Pattern of Criminal Activity pursuant to Florida Statutes Title 45, § 772.103(3) Count IV: . . . Conspiracy pursuant to Florida Statutes Title 45, § 772.103(4) The Florida RICO statute is patterned . . .

JOHNSON ENTERPRISES OF JACKSONVILLE, INC. a v. FPL GROUP, INC. a FPL a a, 162 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 1998)

. . . convincing evidence that he or she has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s. 772.103 . . . Chapter 772.103 makes it unlawful for any person: (1)Who has with criminal intent received any proceeds . . . Stat. ch. 772.103 (1997) (emphasis added). . . .

HOLLINGSWORTH, III, v. IWERKS ENTERTAINMENT, INC. B. W. G. B. W. G., 947 F. Supp. 473 (M.D. Fla. 1996)

. . . another to violate the laws, and that they conspired or endeavored to violate the provisions of Ch 772.103 . . .

ANTHONY DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. MILLER BREWING COMPANY,, 941 F. Supp. 1567 (M.D. Fla. 1996)

. . . convincing evidence that he has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of [Section] 772.103 . . . alleges that Miller violated two (2) of the four (4) provisions listed in the referenced statute, Section 772.103 . . .

H. BAILEY Ad v. TRENAM SIMMONS, KEMKER, SCHARF, BARKIN, FRYE O NEILL, P. A., 938 F. Supp. 825 (S.D. Fla. 1996)

. . . . § 772.103(3). . . . language to indicate the level of involvement necessary for RICO liability. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), F.S.A. § 772.103 . . .

SOMERSET PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. T. KIMBALL, B B, 168 F.R.D. 69 (M.D. Fla. 1996)

. . . See. 772.103(3) and (4), Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act; (d) Section 43 of the Lanham Act, . . .

HADDAD, v. CURA,, 674 So. 2d 168 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . and convincing evidence that he has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s. 772.103 . . .

LAVORNIA, v. RIVERS,, 669 So. 2d 288 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . In violation of section 772.103(1), Florida Statutes, RIVERS and MORAN have with criminal intent received . . . In violation of section 772.103(2), Florida Statutes, RIVERS and MORAN have through a pattern of criminal . . . In violation of section 772.103(3), Florida Statutes, RIVERS has associated with B.N. and the AUCTION . . . In violation of section 772.103(4), Florida Statutes, RIVERS and MORAN have conspired and endeavored . . . to violate sections 772.103(1), (2), and (3), Florida Statutes (R. 208-09). . . .

L. GINSBERG MLG v. LENNAR FLORIDA HOLDINGS, INC. MS I. a, 645 So. 2d 490 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . Ginsberg and MLG Properties, Inc. and Count V alleged a Violation of Section 772.103(4), Florida Statutes . . . Section 772.103(3), Florida Statutes, Florida’s RICO statute, applies only where there has been some . . . In Count V Lennar alleges a violation of section 772.103(4), Florida Statutes. . . . Section 772.103, Florida Statutes reads in pertinent part as follows: Prohibited Activities. . . . Section 772.103 Florida Statutes reads in pertinent part as follows: Prohibited Activities. . . .

JONES v. H. CHILDERS, 18 F.3d 899 (11th Cir. 1994)

. . . . § 772.102(4) and § 772.103. . . . who proves by clear and convincing evidence that his injury was caused as a result of violations of § 772.103 . . . and convincing evidence that he has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s. 772.103 . . . Under § 772.103(3), it is “unlawful for any person: ... . . . Fla.Stat. § 772.103(3) (emphasis added). . . .

In BARRETT HOME CORP. f k a, 165 B.R. 50 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1994)

. . . . §§ 772.103, and 772.104, the Florida civil Rico Statute, rendering the Debtor liable for treble damages . . . Fla.Stat. § 772.103 states: Fla.Stat. § 772.103 Prohibited activities. . . . and convincing evidence that he has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s. 772.103 . . . sum, this Court is satisfied that the claimants equally failed to establish a viable claim under § 772.103 . . .

COLONIAL PENN INSURANCE COMPANY, v. VALUE RENT- A- CAR INC. a k a d b a A- A- A- H., 814 F. Supp. 1084 (S.D. Fla. 1992)

. . . . § 772.103(1). . . . . § 772.103(1) for failure to adequately plead injury. . . . Adequacy of Pleading Injury Under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b) and Fla.Stat. § 772.103(2). . . . Adequacy of Pleading Pattern Under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and Fla.Stat. § 772.103(3). . . .

COFFEY, v. EVANS PROPERTIES, INC., 585 So. 2d 960 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . the whistle” on his employer’s improper use of toxic substances, as well as a theory under section 772.103 . . . The trial court dismissed the section 772.103 claims with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action . . . Evans argues that the order dismissing the section 772.103 claims was a partial final judgment immediately . . . First, the dismissal of the section 772.103 claims was not a partial final judgment and was not then . . . We do not know whether the trial judge will allow the section 772.103 claims to be renewed or added again . . .

F. McCARTHY, Jr. M. D. v. BARNETT BANK OF POLK COUNTY, A a, 750 F. Supp. 1119 (M.D. Fla. 1990)

. . . Section 772.103(3), Florida Statutes Defendants support their position that Counts IX and XII be dismissed . . .

ACCENT HOMES, INC. a v. NARCO REALTY, INC. a a R., 566 So. 2d 5 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . See §§ 772.103, 772.104, Fla.Stat.; A.S.J. Drugs, Inc. v. . . .

ZICCARDI, v. STROTHER,, 570 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . and convincing evidence that he has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s. 772.103 . . .

SCHENK v. SOUTHEAST BANKING CORPORATION, 40 Fla. Supp. 2d 214 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1990)

. . . and convincing evidence that he has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of § 772.103 . . . the statute, Schenk has alleged that her injuries resulted from the violations of the provisions of §772.103 . . . complaint allege an injury to Schenk, but that injury was indirectly caused by a violation of F.S.A. §772.103 . . . maintains that no cause of action is stated because Schenk is not injured “by reason of’ any violation of § 772.103 . . .

NEWMAN, v. GEHL CORPORATION,, 731 F. Supp. 1048 (M.D. Fla. 1990)

. . . action: 1) sex discrimination; 2) violation of the equal pay act; 3) assault; and 4) violation of § 772.103 . . .

T. MANTOOTH, Jr. v. RICHARDS a k a H. Jr., 557 So. 2d 646 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . It was specifically sought to be brought under authority of sections 772.102(l)(a)(12), 772.103, 772.104 . . .

RUSSELL, v. IU INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,, 685 F. Supp. 172 (N.D. Ill. 1988)

. . . . § 772.103; the Florida Securities Law, Fla.Stat. § 517.301; civil theft under Fla.Stat. § 772.11; common . . .

H. BASS, v. MORGAN, LEWIS BOCKIUS, a Jr., 516 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . remedy for the victim, inter alia, of a pattern of criminal extortions, see §§ 772.102( l)(a)(22), 772.103 . . .

SHOUTEN, v. UTAH INTERNATIONAL, INC., 515 So. 2d 366 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . pattern of racketeering activity” in violation of Florida Statutes, section 895.03 (1985), or section 772.103 . . .