Williams General Corporation sued appellees Thomas Stone, Scott Zortman and Stone Cold Concerts, Inc. alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, violation of the Georgia civil RICO Act, OCGA § 16-14-1 et seq., and conspiracy to commit RICO violations. The trial court instructed the jury that it must find that appellees committed the necessary predicate acts to support a civil RICO claim or engaged in a conspiracy to commit RICO violations by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court erred in instructing the jury to apply the preponderance of the evidence standard rather than the heightened clear and convincing evidence standard. Stone v. Williams General Corp. , 266 Ga. App. 608 4 597 SE2d 456 2004. We granted certiorari to determine the applicable burden of proof in civil RICO actions. Because we hold that the predicate acts necessary to support a civil RICO claim must be established by a preponderance of the evidence, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The Georgia RICO Act was enacted by the Georgia legislature to impose criminal penalties against those engaged in an “interrelated pattern of criminal activity motivated by or the effect of which is pecuniary gain or economic or physical threat or injury,” OCGA § 16-14-2 b, see OCGA § 16-14-5, and civil remedies to compensate those injured by reason of such acts. See OCGA § 16-14-6. On the civil side of the Act, OCGA § 16-14-6 c provides, in pertinent
part: any person who is injured by reason of any violation of the RICO Act shall have a cause of action for three times the actual damages sustained and, where appropriate, punitive damages. Such person shall also recover attorneys’ fees in the trial and appellate courts and costs of investigation and litigation reasonably incurred. The Act itself is silent as to the burden of proof required to establish the predicate acts necessary to support a civil RICO claim. As a general rule, Georgia law provides that “in all civil cases a preponderance of evidence is considered sufficient to produce mental conviction.” OCGA § 24-4-3. Although the General Assembly has expressly provided for a greater burden of proof for certain causes of actions through legislative enactment, see OCGA § 24-9-47 disclosure of HIV confidential information, OCGA § 29-5-6 need for guardianship of alleged incapacitated adult, OCGA § 51-12-5.1 recovery of punitive damages in tort actions, and courts have required the elevated clear and convincing standard where individual interests more important than mere loss of money are at stake, see Santosky v. Kramer , 455 U.S. 745 III A 102 SC 1388, 71 LE2d 599 1982 proceeding to terminate parental rights; Motes v. Hall County DFCS , 251 Ga. 373, 374 306 SE2d 260 1983 involuntary sterilization, neither the General Assembly nor this Court has seen fit to apply a heightened evidentiary standard to civil RICO claims under the Georgia statute.
