A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ENACTING THE "SOUTH CAROLINA STREET GANG AND CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE PREVENTION AND ANTI-RACKETEERING ACT"; BY AMENDING ARTICLE 3 OF CHAPTER 8, TITLE 16, RELATING TO THE CRIMINAL GANG PREVENTION ACT, SO AS TO RETITLE THE ARTICLE, REVISE THE DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE ARTICLE, AND RESTRUCTURE THE ARTICLE AND THE OFFENSES AND PENALTIES CONTAINED WITHIN IT; AND BY ADDING ARTICLE 5 TO CHAPTER 8, TITLE 16 SO AS TO CREATE ANTI-RACKETEERING PROVISIONS TO COMPLIMENT THE REVISED STREET GANG AND CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE PREVENTION ARTICLE, DEFINE NECESSARY TERMS, CREATE VARIOUS RACKETEERING OFFENSES AND ESTABLISH PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS, AND PROVIDE FOR FORFEITURE OF ASSETS USED IN A VIOLATION OF RACKETEERING PROVISIONS.
H3520 would enact the “South Carolina Street Gang and Criminal Enterprise Prevention and Anti-Racketeering Act,” substantially revising South Carolina’s existing criminal gang law and adding a new anti-racketeering article. The bill expands and reorganizes definitions of criminal gang, gang member, gang activity, and related offenses, and creates new crimes aimed at gang recruitment, intimidation, witness tampering, and maintaining control of property or enterprise interests through gang activity. It also authorizes enhanced criminal penalties, including felony punishment, additional terms for offenses involving firearms or minors, restitution, and restrictions on contact with gang members or victims.
The bill also creates broad civil and forfeiture remedies. It authorizes seizure and civil forfeiture of firearms, money, records, valuables, and other assets tied to gang activity, and allows the State, local governments, and injured persons to seek injunctions, damages, and treble damages. It directs SLED to maintain a statewide gang database, coordinate with the FBI’s gang file, and collect gang-related incident data, while limiting public disclosure of certain information. In addition, it establishes a Community Safety Anti-Gang Matching Grants program for local prevention efforts such as after-school programs, summer youth employment, and anti-gang task forces.
Beyond gang-specific provisions, the bill adds a separate anti-racketeering article modeled on RICO-style enforcement. That article defines racketeering activity broadly to include a long list of predicate offenses, including drug crimes, violent crimes, theft, fraud, bribery, obstruction of justice, weapons offenses, money laundering-related conduct, and certain federal racketeering and identity crimes. It makes it unlawful to acquire or maintain interests in property or enterprises through racketeering activity, or to conduct an enterprise through such activity, and provides felony penalties, fines tied to illicit gains, injunctive relief, civil damages, and forfeiture of property derived from racketeering.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant: it would replace and expand current gang-prevention provisions in Title 16, Chapter 8, create new criminal and civil enforcement tools, and authorize substantial asset forfeiture and database reporting requirements. It would also give prosecutors and injured parties new avenues to pursue gang-related and racketeering-related conduct, while preserving local authority to adopt consistent ordinances. The bill expressly states that it is intended to supplement, not limit, other criminal prosecutions.
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so no formal legislative debate or recorded sentiment is available. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears strongly punitive and enforcement-oriented, with an emphasis on public safety, deterrence, and disrupting criminal organizations through incarceration, forfeiture, and civil remedies. Potential points of contention likely include the breadth of the definitions of gang and racketeering activity, the scope of seizure and forfeiture authority, the use of law-enforcement databases, and possible concerns about overbreadth or impacts on civil liberties, even though the bill includes language stating it is not intended to interfere with protected speech or association.
The bill would amend and retitle South Carolina’s criminal gang statutes in Title 16, Chapter 8, and add a new anti-racketeering article with felony offenses, civil remedies, forfeiture procedures, and law-enforcement reporting requirements. It would expand prosecutorial and civil enforcement tools against gang activity, authorize seizure of property tied to gang or racketeering conduct, require SLED to maintain a statewide gang database, and create a matching-grant program for local anti-gang prevention efforts. It would also allow local governments to adopt consistent ordinances and preserve existing prosecutions and liabilities under amended law.
No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no documented legislative sentiment to summarize. The bill’s findings and structure indicate a strong pro-enforcement, anti-gang, and anti-racketeering posture, emphasizing public safety, deterrence, and asset forfeiture. The text also includes a disclaimer that it is not intended to interfere with constitutionally protected expression or association, suggesting an effort to address civil-liberties concerns in the drafting.
The main likely points of contention are the breadth of the definitions of “criminal gang,” “criminal gang activity,” and “racketeering activity,” which sweep in a wide range of offenses and conduct. Another likely issue is the bill’s expansive forfeiture and seizure authority, including property, money, communications, and assets, along with civil causes of action and treble damages. Privacy and due-process concerns may also arise from the statewide gang database, information-sharing requirements, and limited public disclosure, while supporters would likely emphasize the bill’s focus on violent crime, witness intimidation, recruitment of minors, and organized criminal enterprises.