N.Y. PEN Law § 460.00 — New York Code / Act PEN / Part 4 / Title X / Article 460 / Section 460.00
Legislative findings
Status: in_force

§ 460.00 Legislative findings.\n  The legislature finds and determines as follows:\n  Organized crime in New York state involves highly sophisticated,\ncomplex and widespread forms of criminal activity. The diversified\nillegal conduct engaged in by organized crime, rooted in the illegal use\nof force, fraud, and corruption, constitutes a major drain upon the\nstate's economy, costs citizens and businesses of the state billions of\ndollars each year, and threatens the peace, security and general welfare\nof the people of the state.\n  Organized crime continues to expand its corrosive influence in the\nstate through illegal enterprises engaged in such criminal endeavors as\nthe theft and fencing of property, the importation and distribution of\nnarcotics and other dangerous drugs, arson for profit, hijacking, labor\nracketeering, loansharking, extortion and bribery, the illegal disposal\nof hazardous wastes, syndicated gambling, trafficking in stolen\nsecurities, insurance and investment frauds, and other forms of economic\nand social exploitation.\n  The money and power derived by organized crime through its illegal\nenterprises and endeavors is increasingly being used to infiltrate and\ncorrupt businesses, unions and other legitimate enterprises and to\ncorrupt our democratic processes. This infiltration takes several forms\nwith legitimate enterprises being employed as instrumentalities, injured\nas victims, or taken as prizes. Through such infiltration the power of\nan enterprise can be diverted to criminal ends, its resources looted, or\nit can be taken over entirely, either on paper or de facto. Thus, for\npurposes of making both criminal and civil remedies available to deal\nwith the corruption of such enterprises, the concept of criminal\nenterprise should not be limited to traditional criminal syndicates or\ncrime families, and may include persons who join together in a criminal\nenterprise, as defined by subdivision three of section 460.10 of this\narticle, for the purpose of corrupting such legitimate enterprises or\ninfiltrating and illicitly influencing industries.\n  One major cause of the continuing growth of organized criminal\nactivities within the state is the inadequacy and limited nature of\nsanctions and remedies available to state and local law enforcement\nofficials to deal with this intricate and varied criminal conduct.\nExisting penal law provisions are primarily concerned with the\ncommission of specific and limited criminal acts without regard to the\nrelationships of particular criminal acts or the illegal profits derived\ntherefrom, to legitimate or illicit enterprises operated or controlled\nby organized crime. Further, traditional penal law provisions only\nprovide for the imposition of conventional criminal penalties, including\nimprisonment, fines and probation, for entrenched organized crime\nenterprises. Such penalties are not adequate to enable the state to\neffectively fight organized crime. Instead, new penal prohibitions and\nenhanced sanctions, and new civil and criminal remedies are necessary to\ndeal with the unlawful activities of persons and enterprises engaged in\norganized crime.  Comprehensive statutes enacted at the federal level\nand in a number of other states with significant organized crime\nproblems, have provided law enforcement agencies with an effective tool\nto fight organized crime. Such laws permit law enforcement authorities\n(i) to charge and prove patterns of criminal activity and their\nconnection to ongoing enterprises, legitimate or illegal, that are\ncontrolled or operated by organized crime, and (ii) to apply criminal\nand civil penalties designed to prevent and eliminate organized crime's\ninvolvement with such enterprises. The organized crime control act is a\nstatute of comparable purpose but tempered by reasonable limitations on\nits applicability, and by due regard for the rights of innocent persons.\nBecause of its more rigorous definitions, this act will not apply to\nsome situations encompassed within comparable statutes in other\njurisdictions. This act is vital to the peace, security and general\nwelfare of the state.\n  In part because of its highly diverse nature, it is impossible to\nprecisely define what organized crime is. This article, however, does\nattempt to define and criminalize what organized crime does. This\narticle focuses upon criminal enterprises because their sophistication\nand organization make them more effective at their criminal purposes and\nbecause their structure and insulation protect their leadership from\ndetection and prosecution.\n  At the same time, this article is not intended to be employed to\nprosecute relatively minor or isolated acts of criminality which, while\nrelated to an enterprise and arguably part of a pattern as defined in\nthis article, can be adequately and more fairly prosecuted as separate\noffenses. Similarly, particular defendants may play so minor a role in a\ncriminal enterprise that their culpability would be unfairly distorted\nby prosecution and punishment for participation in the enterprise.\n  The balance intended to be struck by this act cannot readily be\ncodified in the form of restrictive definitions or a categorical list of\nexceptions. General, yet carefully drawn definitions of the terms\n"pattern of criminal activity" and "criminal enterprise" have been\nemployed.  Notwithstanding the provisions of section 5.00 of this\nchapter these definitions should be given their plain meaning, and\nshould not be construed either liberally or strictly, but in the context\nof the legislative purposes set forth in these findings. Within the\nconfines of these and other applicable definitions, discretion ought\nstill be exercised. Once the letter of the law is complied with,\nincluding the essential showing that there is a pattern of conduct which\nis criminal under existing statutes, the question whether to prosecute\nunder those statutes or for the pattern itself is essentially one of\nfairness. The answer will depend on the particular situation, and is\nbest addressed by those institutions of government which have\ntraditionally exercised that function: the grand jury, the public\nprosecutor, and an independent judiciary.\n