Opinion
No. CV 01-0809740S
February 1, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO STRIKE (NO. 165)
In his revised complaint dated October 23, 2001, the plaintiff alleges that he entered into an agreement with the defendants, who are bail bondsmen, whereby he would refer potential customers — fellow inmates at the Hartford Correctional Center — to them, in exchange for money.
When all the facts set forth in the pro se complaint are interpreted in the plaintiff's favor, it is clear that the Motion to Strike the complaint in its entirety must be granted. The plaintiff has failed to allege that he is a licensed bail bondsman. If he solicited potential customers for a licensed bondsman, he did so illegally, in violation of Sec. 38a-660(c) of our General Statutes. Any such act would be punishable as a Class C felony.
It is well established in Connecticut that contracts for the performance of criminal acts are not enforceable and are void as against public policy. Design Development, Inc. v. Brignole, 20 Conn.App. 685, 688 (1990).
The Motion to Strike the complaint is therefore granted.
Miller, J.