George Norcross’ lawyers are back in court in racketeering case. Here’s what to know.

Seven months after New Jersey prosecutors announced criminal racketeering and extortion charges against George E. Norcross III, the Democratic power broker’s lawyers are set to return to court Wednesday to try to persuade a judge to toss the indictment.

A grand jury in June accused Norcross, 68, of making threats of economic and reputational harm — as well as leveraging his reputation for controlling local government entities — to obtain valuable waterfront real estate in Camden from rival developers and others. Norcross and his five codefendants have pleaded not guilty.

Attorneys for Norcross — an insurance executive, chair of the board at Cooper University Health Care, and longtime leader of the Democratic Party in South Jersey — have argued in court filings that his alleged threats amount to nothing more than “hardball business negotiations.”

A hearing to consider Norcross’ motion to dismiss the charges is set for 10 a.m. in Trenton before Mercer County Superior Court Judge Peter Warshaw.

Here’s what to know.

Prosecutors say Norcross in the summer of 2016 told Philadelphia developer Carl Dranoff that if he did not agree to sell his property rights under the power broker’s preferred terms, Norcross would “f— you up like you’ve never been f— up before” and “make sure you never do business in this town again.”

Months later, on a call that was secretly recorded by the FBI, Norcross told an associate he had warned Dranoff that there would be “enormous consequences” for his intransigence, the indictment says.

Facing these threats and additional pressure from Norcross and his associates, the indictment says, Dranoff sold property and development rights for less than he believed they were worth.

Norcross and his associates then used that property to build an office tower and apartment complex and obtain millions of dollars in tax credits to offset the costs of construction, benefiting from a state economic development program they helped shape through their influence over the New Jersey Legislature, prosecutors say.

The government says these actions constitute extortion and other criminal conduct.

Norcross’ attorneys dispute the allegations in the indictment. But at this stage in the case, prosecutors only have to show that the charging document lays out theoretical crimes that if proven at trial would constitute violations of criminal statutes.

To that end, Norcross’ lawyers say that even if their client did make those threats, they fell within the bounds of the law.

“Dranoff did not have any legal right to do business with Norcross, or his associates, or others in Camden,” attorneys Yaakov Roth, Harry Graver, Michael Critchley and others wrote in a Dec. 19 court filing. “… For better or worse, the business world is not a ‘level playing field.’ When a big company puts the screws on a smaller one, that is capitalistic, not criminal.”

Norcross’ lawyers also have pushed back on the notion that Norcross’ reputation as a “political boss” instilled fear in Dranoff that caused him to relinquish his property, amounting to extortion.

“As the state admits, Norcross held no public office. If he had any ‘control’ over government, it could only have been by petitioning those who did,” they wrote. “Yet that activity is immune under the federal and state constitutions — whether successful or not, and whether conducted for benevolent purposes or selfish ones.”

This is a developing story and will be updated.