ILNews

42 members of Indianapolis motorcycle club indicted

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In what has been described by Southern District U.S. Attorney Joseph Hogsett as the largest federal organized crime prosecution in Indianapolis history, 42 members of the Outlaws Motorcycle Club in Indianapolis have been indicted on various offenses including extortion and drug charges.

Hogsett announced the arrests of the described gang members Wednesday afternoon.

More than 300 federal, state and local law enforcement officers simultaneously converged on more than a dozen locations in Indianapolis on Wednesday morning, resulting in the execution of 42 arrest warrants and 17 search warrants.

The U.S. Attorney’s office described the Outlaws Motorcycle Club as an international criminal organization that allegedly operated out of a clubhouse on the east side of Indianapolis.

The charging document alleges that members of the club engaged in organized criminal activity and across the state since May 2009. The 42 arrested are charged with racketeering, mail fraud, money laundering, wire fraud, and other charges. The members are accused of using violence and the threat of force to collect personal debts and allegedly operated an illegal lottery scheme in Indianapolis that trafficked thousands of dollars a day.

According to Senior Litigation Counsel Bradley A. Blackington, who is prosecuting for the government, the defendants face up to decades in prison and substantial fines if found guilty.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT