This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.
This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.
Fiscal Note - SB 0474 - Establishes crimes regarding racketeering and conspiracy against state and state officials
COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. NO. 2114-01
BILL NO. SB 474
SUBJECT: Racketeering and Conspiracy
TYPE: Original
DATE: January 13, 1998
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS Net Effect on All State Funds
FUND AFFECTED
FY 1999
FY 2000
FY 2001 General Revenue
($116,671 to Unknown)
($117,118 to Unknown)
($120,201 to Unknown)
Total Estimated
($116,671 to Unknown)
($117,118 to Unknown)
($120,201 to Unknown)
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS | |||
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 1999 | FY 2000 | FY 2001 |
| None | |||
| Total Estimated
Net Effect on All Federal Funds |
$0 | $0 | $0 |
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS | |||
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 1999 | FY 2000 | FY 2001 |
| Local Government | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Numbers within parentheses: ( ) indicate costs or losses
This fiscal note contains 5 pages.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
Officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator assumes the proposal could result in an increase in the number of cases filed; however, they assume that the increase would likely not be great enough to impact the overall workload of the courts.
Officials from the Office of the Attorney General (AGO) assume the proposed legislation would give their office the power to enforce new provisions relating to racketeering and conspiracy, including investigatory powers. This proposal would also give the AGO concurrent authority with prosecuting attorneys to institute criminal actions. The AGO assumes they would require 1.0 FTE Assistant Attorney General I ($30,000 per year), 1.0 FTE Investigator ($25,000 per year), and 0.5 Legal Secretary ($18,000 per year) plus related travel, office, communication, and data processing expenses to carry out the provisions of this proposal with an estimated cost of approximately $117,000 per year to General Revenue.
Officials from the Office of the State Public Defender (SPD) assume that existing staff could represent the 15 to 20 additional cases that might arise as a result of this proposal. However, passage of more than one similar proposal could require the SPD to request increased appropriations to cover the cumulative cost of representing the indigent accused.
Officials from the Office of Prosecution Services (OPS) assume the proposed legislation could increase the workload of some county prosecutors; however, OPS assumes that any impact would be minimal and could be absorbed with existing resources.
Officials from the Office of the Cole County Prosecuting Attorney, the Office of the Boone County Prosecuting Attorney, and the Office of the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney assume the proposal would not have a significant fiscal impact on their agencies, as county prosecutors currently have the authority to charge similar types of crimes under other statutes.
Officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC) assume the proposal would have an unknown fiscal impact on their agency, as they are unable to predict the number of new commitments which could result from the offenses outlined. DOC assumes the increase in commitments would depend on the utilization by the attorney general and the prosecutors and the actual sentences imposed by the courts. If additional persons are sentenced to the custody of the DOC, they would incur a corresponding increase in operational costs either through incarceration (average of $30.27 per inmate, per day) or through supervision provided by the Board of Probation and Parole (average of $2.47 per offender, per day). DOC further assumes that the estimated construction cost for one new maximum security inmate bed would be $48,800.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
Officials from the Office of the St. Louis City Prosecuting Attorney and the Office of the Jackson County Prosecuting Attorney did not respond to our fiscal note request.
| FISCAL IMPACT - State Government | FY 1999 | FY 2000 | FY 2001 |
| (10 Mo.) | |||
| GENERAL REVENUE FUND | |||
| Cost - Office of Attorney General (AGO) | |||
| Personal Service (2.5 FTE) | ($ 54,667) | ($ 67,241) | ($ 68,922) |
| Fringe Benefits | (15,323) | (18,848) | (19,319) |
| Expense and Equipment | (46,681) | (31,029) | (31,960) |
| Total Cost - AGO | ($116,671) | ($117,118) | ($120,201) |
| Cost - Department of Corrections (DOC) | (Unknown) | (Unknown) | (Unknown) |
| ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON | ($116,671 to | ($117,118 to | ($120,201 to |
| GENERAL REVENUE FUND | Unknown) | Unknown) | Unknown) |
| FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government | FY 1999 | FY 2000 | FY 2001 |
| (10 Mo.) | |||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | |
FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business
No direct fiscal impact to small businesses would be expected as a result of this proposal.
DESCRIPTION
The proposal would make it illegal to use income received from a pattern of racketeering activity to acquire any interest in, or establish or operate any enterprise. If half a defendant's income over a period of two or more years preceding the investment was derived from a pattern of racketeering activity, then a rebuttable presumption would arise that the investment at issue included income derived from a racketeering activity. No person would be allowed to acquire or
DESCRIPTION (continued)
maintain an interest in any enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. No employee or associate of an enterprise would be allowed to participate in the enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. Violation of the provisions contained in the proposal would be a Class C felony.
The proposal would give the attorney general the power to enforce these new provisions, including investigatory powers, and would also give them concurrent authority with prosecuting attorneys to institute criminal actions. Furthermore, circuit courts would have the power, after a hearing, to order divestiture of interests, restrain future activities relating to the enterprise, and to provide for the rights of innocent parties, including ordering the dissolution of the enterprise. A conviction would estop a person from denying the allegations of the criminal offense in any subsequent civil proceeding. The proposal would not limit any regulatory authority of state agencies or departments. The attorney general would be allowed to serve a civil investigative demand for production of documents upon a person or enterprise, with certain limitations. The proposal would establish that all documents not retained by a court or grand jury be returned at the close of the investigation.
Conspiracy to commit any offense against the state, or to defraud the state or any agency, would be a Class C felony. If the offense were charged as a misdemeanor, then the punishment for conspiracy would not exceed the maximum punishment for the misdemeanor. Conspiracy to prevent any person from accepting or holding any office of the state or from discharging duties of such office would be a Class C felony.
This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other program and would not require additional capital improvements or rental space.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Office of State Courts Administrator
Office of the Attorney General
Office of Prosecution Services
Office of the Cole County Prosecuting Attorney
Office of the Boone County Prosecuting Attorney
Office of the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney
Department of Corrections
SOURCES OF INFORMATION (continued)
NOT RESPONDING: Office of the St. Louis City Prosecuting Attorney and the Office of the Jackson County Prosecuting Attorney.
Jeanne Jarrett, CPA
Director
January 13, 1998