Colorado COCCA Charges Lawyer

Most criminal prosecutions focus on discrete acts: a theft, a fraud, a drug transaction, or an assault. The Colorado Organized Crime Control Act (“COCCA”), however, allows prosecutors to target actions more broadly. Rather than charging isolated offenses, the government uses COCCA to characterize multiple acts as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise, or as “racketeering.” This allows them to seek penalties that extend beyond those associated with the underlying crimes.

What is COCCA?

Colorado enacted COCCA to combat ongoing criminal enterprises, and lawmakers modeled it after the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) statute. 

In practice, prosecutors use COCCA in cases involving fraud, theft rings, drug trafficking organizations, public corruption, and other complex investigations.

C.R.S. § 18-17-104 makes it unlawful for a person employed by or associated with an enterprise to knowingly conduct or participate in that enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. 

That focus on the ‘enterprise’ element makes COCCA different from most criminal statutes. The prosecution must do more than simply prove individual crimes occurred. This is a more difficult feat than proving just one, singular lower level crime, however, if prosecutors do meet their burden of proof, the penalties can be severe for those facing charges.

The 3 Elements of a COCCA Charge

1. An enterprise

The enterprise element often serves as the foundation of the case. Under C.R.S. § 18-17-103(2), an “enterprise” can include corporations, partners, associations, other entities, and groups of individuals associated in fact. The statute intentionally adopts a broad definition and scope for this element because lawmakers wanted prosecutors to reach both formal organizations and informal criminal networks. However, comparatively, this definition is more narrow than RICO’s enterprise definition because it uses the term “means” rather than “includes,” indicating a more restrictive scope. People v. McGlotten, 166 P.3d 182 (Colo. App. 2007).

Importantly, an enterprise doesn’t need to operate as an inherently illegal organization. Prosecutors often allege that legitimate businesses functioned as vehicles for fraudulent or criminal activity. A construction company, medical practice, or retail business may qualify as an enterprise if the government believes participants used the organization to facilitate racketeering activity. On the other side of the coin, the enterprise does not need to be separate from racketeering activity. In People v. Cerrone, the court established that an enterprise can consist of a group of individuals associated in fact, even if their association is solely for illicit purposes. 867 P.2d 143 (1993).

Because the definition reaches so broadly, disputes over the existence of an enterprise often become central issues in COCCA litigation. Prosecutors typically portray the alleged participants as members of a coordinated organization pursuing a common objective. Defense attorneys often respond by arguing that the government has merely assembled a group of individuals who happened to interact with one another. Knowing someone involved in criminal conduct does not automatically transform a person into a member of an enterprise.

The enterprise element requires prosecutors to demonstrate more than casual relationships or isolated interactions. They must show some degree of organizational structure, continuity, or coordinated activity that connects participants to a larger undertaking.

2. A pattern of racketeering activity

Even if prosecutors establish the existence of an enterprise, they must still prove a pattern of racketeering activity. This requirement prevents the government from transforming every isolated criminal act into a racketeering case.

Under COCCA, a “pattern of racketeering activity” is established by proving at least two acts of racketeering activity that are related to the conduct of an enterprise. People v. Chaussee, 880 P.2d 749 (Colo. 1994).

In contrast, RICO requires both “continuity” and “relatedness” among predicate acts to establish a pattern, as interpreted by federal courts. People v. Chaussee, 880 P.2d 749 (1994), McDonald v. People, 2021 CO 64 (2021).

In Chaussee, the Colorado Supreme Court rejected attempts to import certain federal RICO requirements into COCCA. Colorado’s statute contains its own definition of a pattern and held that prosecutors need not satisfy the same continuity requirements that often arise in federal RICO litigation. As a result, Colorado prosecutors may have an easier path to establishing a pattern than their federal counterparts.

But that doesn’t mean the requirement lacks significance. Prosecutors must still identify qualifying predicate acts and connect those acts to the enterprise. Defense counsel can challenge whether the alleged acts truly relate to one another or if prosecutors simply grouped together unrelated conduct in an effort to construct a racketeering charge.

3. Participation in the enterprise

The third elements prohibits individuals from knowingly conducting or participating, directly or indirectly, in an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.

This creates an important distinction between active participants and individuals who merely associated with members of the alleged enterprise. Investigations often uncover communications, friendships, business relationships, and family connections among participants. Prosecutors may attempt to use those relationships as evidence of involvement. However, association alone does not establish participation.

In, People v. Pollard, 3 P.3d 473 (2000). the court upheld a COCCA conviction where the defendant knowingly used corporate entities to engage in fraudulent schemes, showing his association with and participation in the enterprise. People v. Pollard, 3 P.3d 473 (2000). Similarly, in People v. Randell, 3P.3d 108 (Colo. 2012), the court emphasized that the predicate acts must be related to the conduct of the enterprise to establish this element.

What Crimes Serve as Predicate Acts?

A COCCA prosecution begins with the alleged predicate acts. Under C.R.S. § 18-17-103(5), “racketeering activity” includes a wide range of state and federal crimes.

Crimes Against Persons

Some predicate acts involve crimes against individuals. These offenses include first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter, assault, kidnapping, and human trafficking. C.R.S. § 18-17-103(5).

Although these offenses often carry severe penalties on their own, prosecutors may seek additional racketeering charges when they believe the conduct furthered the objectives of an ongoing criminal enterprise.

Crimes Against Property

COCCA also encompasses many traditional property crimes. Predicate acts include arson, burglary, robbery, theft, and motor vehicle theft. These offenses frequently appear in cases involving organized theft rings, burglary crews, and coordinated property crime operations.

For example, prosecutors may allege that a series of thefts committed by multiple participants over time reflects the activities of a criminal enterprise rather than isolated criminal conduct.

Fraud and Financial Crimes

White-collar offenses often provide the foundation for modern COCCA prosecutions. Predicate acts include forgery, identity theft, money laundering, and numerous forms of fraud recognized under both state and federal law.

Because financial crimes usually involve multiple transactions with multiple participants, they often satisfy the standard for a racketeering charge.

Crimes Affecting Government Operations

The statute also includes offenses that interfere with governmental processes. Perjury, jury tampering, and tampering with physical evidence can all qualify as predicate acts under certain circumstances. COCCA reaches beyond crimes motivated by financial gain. The statute targets conduct that undermines public institutions when that conduct occurs as part of a larger enterprise.

Federal Crimes Can Serve as Predicate Acts

COCCA does not limit prosecutors to Colorado offenses. The statute expressly incorporates many federal crimes identified in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1), including offenses such as mail fraud and wire fraud.

COCCA’s Civil Consequences

The Colorado Organized Crime Control Act (COCCA) provides for civil liability, allowing individuals injured by violations of its provisions to pursue civil remedies. Below are the relevant provisions and standards for civil actions under COCCA:

Under COCCA, an injured party has a private cause of action. A person can recover “threefold the actual damages sustained, as well as attorney fees and costs of investigation and litigation reasonably incurred.” C.R.S. 18-17-106. Civil remedies are supplemental and not mutually exclusive, meaning that pursuing one remedy doesn’t preclude the application of others, whether civil or criminal. C.R.S. 18-17-106, C.R.S. 18-17-108.

How COCCA Differs from Conspiracy Charges

Although prosecutors often charge COCCA and conspiracy together, the offenses target different conduct and require different proof.

Under Colorado’s conspiracy statute, C.R.S. § 18-2-201, prosecutors must generally prove that two or more people agreed to commit a crime and that one of them committed an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. The focus remains on the agreement itself.

COCCA requires substantially more. Prosecutors must prove the existence of an enterprise, a pattern of racketeering activity, and the defendant’s participation in the enterprise through that pattern. Unlike conspiracy, COCCA targets ongoing criminal enterprises rather than a single criminal agreement.

The distinction matters because a prosecutor may prove a conspiracy without proving a racketeering enterprise. A group of individuals may agree to commit a crime and satisfy the elements of conspiracy, but that same conduct may not establish the structure, continuity, or pattern of activity required for a COCCA conviction.

The consequences also differ significantly. Conspiracy is a criminal offense tied to the underlying crime that was the object of the agreement. COCCA exposes defendants to broader criminal penalties, asset forfeiture, and civil liability. In some cases, the financial consequences of a COCCA prosecution can exceed the direct criminal penalties.

Conspiracy punishes an agreement to commit a crime. COCCA targets the operation of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.

Contact a COCCA Lawyer

COCCA reaches far beyond traditional criminal statutes. Rather than focusing solely on individual criminal acts, the statute allows prosecutors to target alleged enterprises and patterns of racketeering activity. That approach gives the government a powerful mechanism for pursuing criminal penalties, forfeiture remedies, and civil liability.

At the same time, the statute’s broad reach creates important opportunities for the defense. Questions involving the existence of an enterprise, the presence of a qualifying pattern, and the defendant’s actual participation often determine whether a racketeering prosecution succeeds or fails. Because so much turns on those issues, anyone facing COCCA allegations should understand not only the underlying criminal charges but also the larger enterprise theory driving the prosecution’s case.

If you need a defense lawyer to help you navigate a COCCA or RICO charge, call Evergreen Attorneys at (303) 948-1489 today. Email our founding attorney Zach Newland at [email protected] or fill out a contact form on our website to get in touch ASAP. Contacting Evergreen Attorneys is the first step to finding hope and a plan for your COCCA charges.