N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-42-3
A. “racketeering" means any act that is chargeable or indictable under the laws of New Mexico and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, involving any of the following cited offenses:
History: Laws 1980, ch. 40, § 3; 1988, ch. 14, § 4; 1998, ch. 113, § 6; 2009, ch. 253, § 7; 2009, ch. 261, § 7; 2024, ch. 38, § 16; 2025, ch. 128, § 2.
The 2025 amendment, effective June 20, 2025, added certain crimes to the definition of "racketeering" and made technical amendments; in Subsection A, Paragraph A(20), deleted "a violation of the provisions of" and added "money laundering, as provided in," and added Paragraphs A(27) through A(33).
The 2024 amendment, effective July 1, 2024, added "trafficking cannabis products" to the list of offenses under the Racketeering Act; and in Subsection A, added Paragraph A(26).
The 2009 amendment, effective July 1, 2009, in Paragraph (9) of Subsection A, changed "Section 30-24-3 NMSA 1978" to "Section 30-24-3.1 NMSA 1978" and added Paragraphs (21) through (25) of Subsection A.
Laws 2009, ch. 253, § 7 enacted identical amendments to this section. The section was set out as amended by Laws 2009, ch. 261, § 7. See 12-1-8 NMSA 1978.
The 1998 amendment, effective July 1, 1998, substituted "that" for "which" in Subsection A; added Paragraph A(20); substituted "means an" for "includes any" near the beginning of Subsection B; substituted "incident" for "which" near the end of Subsection D; and made minor stylistic changes throughout the section.
The 1988 amendment, effective July 1, 1988, substituted "the New Mexico Securities Act of 1986" for "Sections 58-13-39 and 58-13-40 NMSA 1978; and" in Subsection A(17), made a minor stylistic change in Subsection A(18), and added Subsection A(19).
Intent to perform only predicate acts. — The legislature intended the Racketeering Act to have a broad application, so that it covers situations in which a group of individuals associate only to perform predicate criminal acts. State v. Hughes, 1988-NMCA-108, 108 N.M. 143, 767 P.2d 382, cert. denied, 108 N.M. 115, 767 P.2d 354.
Intent requirement. — With respect to the intent requirement, the definition of a "pattern of racketeering activity" is hardly a model of clarity. Where the requested finding and the adopted finding both concern only the intent to commit those acts of fraud that could constitute predicate offenses for a pattern of racketeering activity, such intent is not enough to establish a racketeering claim. The intent component of the definition of "pattern of racketeering activity" would be useless if it encompassed nothing more than the intent necessary to commit each of the two incidents of racketeering required by definition. Naranjo v. Paull, 1990-NMCA-111, 111 N.M. 165, 803 P.2d 254.
"Enterprise". — An "enterprise" as used in the racketeering statute may exist when there is no association above and beyond the acts which form the pattern of racketeering activity. State v. Wynne, 1988-NMCA-106, 108 N.M. 134, 767 P.2d 373, cert. denied, 108 N.M. 115, 767 P.2d 354.
The factors to be considered in determining the existence of an enterprise include the identity of the individuals involved, their knowledge of the relevant activities, the amount of planning required to carry out the predicate acts, the frequency of the acts, the time span between each act, and the existence of an identifiable structure within the association or entity. State v. Hughes, 1988-NMCA-108, 108 N.M. 143, 767 P.2d 382, cert. denied, 108 N.M. 115, 767 P.2d 354.
Governmental agencies may be considered "enterprises" for the purposes of the Racketeering Act. State v. Armijo, 1997-NMCA-080, 123 N.M. 690, 944 P.2d 919.
"Association" necessary for "enterprise". — While proof of an association is essential to establishing the elements of an enterprise, the purpose of the association may be as simple as earning money from repeated illegal acts. State v. Hughes, 1988-NMCA-108, 108 N.M. 143, 767 P.2d 382, cert. denied, 108 N.M. 115, 767 P.2d 354.
Failure to state two underlying activities. — Complaint alleging racketeering activity was properly dismissed where plaintiffs conceded that dismissed defendants had not committed fraud, and where plaintiffs failed to state two activities underlying their claim as required by Subsection D. Maxwell v. Wilson, 1988-NMSC-096, 108 N.M. 65, 766 P.2d 909.
Distinct, independent proof of elements not necessary. — Although the state must prove both the existence of an "enterprise" and a "pattern of racketeering activity," proof of these elements need not be, and often will not be, distinct and independent. State v. Hughes, 1988-NMCA-108, 108 N.M. 143, 767 P.2d 382, cert. denied, 108 N.M. 115, 767 P.2d 354.
Effect of acquittal on some predicate charges. — Petit jury verdicts of guilty on each fraud count returned by them against defendants constituted a basis to uphold the racketeering verdicts and provided assurance that the jury found defendants guilty of at least two of the predicate acts of fraud as charged in the indictment. Simply because defendants were acquitted of some charges and others were dismissed does not require the racketeering charges to be set aside where the jury returned guilty verdicts on other predicate counts. State v. Crews, 1989-NMCA-088, 110 N.M. 723, 799 P.2d 592, cert. denied, 109 N.M. 232, 784 P.2d 419.
Law reviews. — For note, "Criminal Procedure — New Mexico Denies Fifth Amendment Protection to Corporations: John Doe and Five Unnamed Corporations v. State ex rel. Governor's Organized Crime Prevention Commission," see 23 N.M. L. Rev. 315 (1993).