Patel v. State, 289 Ga. 479

State filed five civil RICO actions on March 8, 2010 against purported store owners/operators and the stores themselves as in rem defendants.
Complaints allege illegal commercial gambling via electronic gaming devices, with winnings paid in cash, constituting racketeering activity under OCGA § 16-14-3(8)-(9).
Courts issued ex parte TROs and appointed temporary receivers to manage assets pending litigation.
April 19, 2010 orders granted interlocutory injunctions and continued receiverships; defendants appealed.
Georgia Supreme Court held: (a) remedies of injunction/receivership are equitable and not criminal; (b) in rem forfeiture remains available; (c) issues remanded for certain due-process and excessiveness considerations; (d) recusal rulings upheld.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of in rem forfeiture versus in personam	Cisco prohibits in personam RICO forfeiture; remediable via in rem only.	Remedies used (injunction/receivership) align with Cisco distinctions and do not convert into in personam forfeiture.	Remedies remain equitable and constitutional when used with in rem forfeiture.
Excessive fines under the Eighth Amendment in rem forfeiture	Excessiveness should be evaluated under Howell factors with prospective value.	Forfeiture values were unknown; case merits remand for proper calculation.	Remanded for consideration of excessiveness once values are established.
Sufficiency of evidence showing a pattern of racketeering	CI-detected gambling acts at each store satisfy predicate acts under OCGA § 16-14-3(8)-(9).	Not all acts show payouts; machines may be limited to amusement; insufficient predicate acts.	Evidence supports a pattern of racketeering; sufficient for preliminary relief.
Due process in granting injunctions and continuing receiverships	Evidence was heard; parties had opportunity to present witnesses and arguments.	Procedures violated due process by overly broad orders.	No due process violation; proceedings proper and consistent with OCGA provisions.
Recusal motions against the presiding judge	Judge's prior involvement in related criminal matters tainted impartiality.	No extra-judicial bias; motions were legally insufficient.	Motions to recuse denied; no disqualifying bias shown.

Cisco v. State of Ga., 285 Ga. 656, 680 S.E.2d 831 (2009) (distinguishes in rem vs in personam RICO forfeiture; confirms equitable remedies allowed with in rem forfeiture)
Pittman v. State of Ga., 288 Ga. 589, 706 S.E.2d 398 (2011) (recognizes receivership and injunctions may accompany in rem forfeiture)
Howell v. State of Ga., 283 Ga. 24, 656 S.E.2d 511 (2008) (excessive fines test under Howell factors for RICO-like forfeitures)
Cousins v. Macedonia Bapt. Church of Atlanta, 283 Ga. 570, 662 S.E.2d 533 (2008) (due process considerations in proceedings; recusal standards referenced)
United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998) (touchstone for proportionality of forfeitures under Excessive Fines Clause)