Adds animal fighting to the definition of criminal activity for purposes of enterprise corruption crimes

• Democratic26
• Republican13

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why James Skoufis says this is needed

Though all levels of government continue efforts to prevent and prose- cute animal fighting, blood sports still thrive in every part of New York State. The act is not only a horrific experience for animals forced to fight to a violent death, but it often increases the number of drugs and illegal weapons available on the street through illicit trafficking enterprises taking place concurrently on-site. The most recent example (Long Island, 2021) revealed a highly sophisti- cated, diversified network of organized dog fighters ranging widely in age, ethnicity, and geographic location who were arrested for their key roles in the largest dogfighting ring in Suffolk County history. This interstate operation extended from Long Island to New York City, Connec- ticut, and Massachusetts, with detectives infiltrating the ring to bring it down from the inside. Here, the public was reminded once again of the criminal underground world of breeding, training, transporting, and fighting dogs for amuse- ment or gain, and the significant money that surrounds this blood sport, from the value of grand champion and champion dogs and their descendants to the substantial amounts of prize money and sports betting that occurs in connection with dog fighting. A Special Grand Jury heard evidence of how these perpetrators use online forums that cross state lines to advertise animal breeding and training for organized dog fighting, as well as solicit matches and engage in sports betting. The current Agriculture and Markets Law statute that criminalizes animal fighting provides limited penalties for many who have been part of this a clandestine network of organized dog fighters for decades. For those offenders who have been charged with Agriculture and Markets Law offenses, they often resolve the criminal case by paying monetary fines, which is considered by many as simply the price of doing business. In 2017, the NYS Legislature amended § 700.05 of the Criminal Procedure. Law to recognize animal fighting as a designated offense eligible for court-ordered eavesdropping. This amendment recognizes the seriousness and potential complexity of the crime, thereby permitting such conduct to be intercepted over wiretaps. Based on the serious threat posed to the safety of animals and the community by organized animal fighting rings - and the complex structure and substantial revenue earned by these illegal operations - the Special Grand Jury in the above case recommended that organized criminal schemes relating to organized animal fighting be subject to punishment commensurate with. The severity of the criminal conduct. However, at present in the Penal Law, and as charged in the indictments, participation in an organized scheme to engage in animal fighting only constitutes a class A misdemeanor, chargeable under Conspiracy in the Fifth Degree, pursuant to PL § 105.05(1). Therefore, in light of the serious nature of the organized criminal activity involved in animal fighting networks, this bill would authorize animal fighting rings are to be chargeable under Article 460 of the Penal Law, specifically amending Section 460.10 - which defines "crimi- nal acts" that may be the basis for an enterprise corruption prosecution to include the felony violations prohibiting of animal fighting under AGM § 351(2). Criminal acts listed in the Enterprise Corruption statute already include such crimes as murder, assault, weapon and narcotics possession, larceny, gambling, forgery, and possession of false instruments. The addition of the felony prohibition of animal fighting to the definition of "criminal act" in PL § 460.10 would allow offenders to be charged with Enterprise Corruption, a class B felony offense carrying substan- tial potential punishment if they are active participants in a criminal enterprise formed to facilitate and profit from animal fighting. These potential punishments are appropriate and justifiable based on the brutal nature of such animal cruelty offenses an

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.