Senator Malloy proposes the following amendment (SJ-154.MB0007S):

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by deleting SECTIONS 1, 2, and 3.

Amend the bill further, SECTION 4, Section 16-8-540, by adding subsections to read:

 (E) When two or more defendants are jointly charged with engaging in a violation of Section 16-8-530, they must be tried jointly unless the court orders separate trials. Severance may not be granted as a matter of law when codefendants present mutually antagonistic defenses, but may be granted, in the court's exercise of discretion, only when there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of a codefendant or prevent the jury making a reliable judgement about a codefendant's guilt. In ordering separate trials, the court in its discretion may order a separate trial as to one or more defendants, and a joint trial as to the others, or may order any number of the defendants to be tried at one trial, and any number of the others at different trials, or may order a separate trial for each defendant; provided, that when two or more persons can be jointly tried, the fact that separate accusatory pleadings were filed does not prevent their joint trial.
 (F) Nothing in this section limits prosecution under any other provision of law.

Amend the bill further, SECTION 4, by striking Section 16-8-550(A) and inserting:

 (A) The circuit court, after making due provisions for the rights of innocent persons, may enjoin violations of Section 16-8-530 by issuing appropriate orders and judgments including, but not limited to:
  (1) ordering any defendant to divest himself of any interest in any enterprise, real property, or personal property;
   (a) The court may determine any real property maintained, owned, leased, or used by an enterprise for the purpose of conducting racketeering activities constitutes a public nuisance and may be abated pursuant to Chapter 43, Title 15.
   (b) An action to abate a nuisance pursuant to this section may be brought by the Attorney General or the circuit solicitor in the appropriate state or municipal court;
  (2) imposing reasonable restrictions upon the future activities or investments of any defendant including, but not limited to, prohibiting any defendant from engaging in the same type of endeavor as the enterprise in which he was engaged in violation of Section 16-8-530;
  (3) ordering the dissolution or reorganization of any enterprise;
  (4) ordering the suspension or revocation of any license, permit, or prior approval granted to any enterprise by any agency of the State; or
  (5) imposing restrictions that a person sentenced may not knowingly have contact of any kind or character with any other member or associate of the enterprise. This condition does not apply to prisoners or inmates in custody of the South Carolina Department of Corrections or a local jail within the state and does not apply to a child in the custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice or a local jail.

Amend the bill further, by adding an appropriately numbered SECTION to read:

SECTION X. Chapter 8, Article 5, Title 16 of the S.C. Code is amended by adding:

 Section 16-8-560. In any criminal proceeding, the crime will be considered to have been committed in any county in which an incident of racketeering activity, as defined in this article, occurred or in which an interest or control of an enterprise or real or personal property is acquired or maintained.

Amend the bill further, by striking SECTION 5 and inserting:

SECTION 5. The General Assembly finds that the sections presented in this act constitute one subject as required by Article III, Section 17 of the South Carolina Constitution, in particular finding that each change and each topic relates directly to or in conjunction with other sections to the subject of criminal enterprise prevention and associated anti-racketeering provisions as clearly enumerated in the title. The General Assembly further finds that a common purpose or relationship exists among the sections, representing a potential plurality but not disunity of topics, notwithstanding that reasonable minds might differ in identifying more than one topic contained in the act.