An “organized crime” should be any “continuing unlawful activity” either by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an “organized crime syndicate” or on behalf of such syndicate. The main ingredient is that such “continuing unlawful activity” should have been indulged in by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion or other unlawful means. Further, such violence and other activity should have been indulged in with an objective of gaining pecuniary benefits or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or for any other person or for promoting insurgency. Therefore, an “organized crime” by nature of violent action indulged in by an individual singly or jointly either as a member of an “organized crime syndicate” or on behalf of such syndicate should have been either with an object of making pecuniary gains or undue economic or other advantage or for promoting insurgency. If the object was for making pecuniary gains, it can be either for himself or for any other person. But for promoting insurgency, there is no such requirement of any personal interest or the interest of any other person or body. The mere indulgence in a violent activity etc., either for pecuniary gain or other advantage or for promoting insurgency as an individual, either singly or jointly as a member of “organized crime syndicate” or on behalf of a such syndicate would be sufficient for bringing the said activity within the four corners of the definition of “organized crime”.
An “organized crime syndicate” is a group of two or more persons who by acting singly or collectively as a syndicate or gang indulge in activities of “organized crime”. Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 138.