(a)Any employee who solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept money or any thing of value from a person other than his or her employer, other than in trust for the employer, corruptly and without the knowledge or consent of the employer, in return for using or agreeing to use his or her position for the benefit of that other person, and any person who offers or gives an employee money or any thing of value
under those circumstances, is guilty of commercial bribery.
(b)This section does not apply where the amount of money or monetary worth of the thing of value is two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or less.
(c)Commercial bribery is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year if the amount of the bribe is one thousand dollars ($1,000) or less, or by imprisonment in the county jail, or in the state prison for 16 months, or two or three years if the amount of the bribe exceeds one thousand dollars ($1,000).
(d)For purposes of this section:
(1)“Employee” means an officer, director, agent, trustee, partner, or employee.
(2)“Employer” means a corporation,
association, organization, trust, partnership, or sole proprietorship.
(3)“Corruptly” means that the person specifically intends to injure or defraud (A) his or her employer, (B) the employer of the person to whom he or she offers, gives, or agrees to give the money or a thing of value, (C) the employer of the person from whom he or she requests, receives, or agrees to receive the money or a thing of value, or (D) a competitor of any such employer.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2023 · leading case:
Ferrick v. Santa Clara Univ., 39 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 834 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).
Ferrick v. Santa Clara Univ., 39 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 834 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 4× “” (Pen. Code, § 641.3, subd. (d)(3).) Ferrick claims that three of Travis’s alleged activities provided a reasonable basis for her to believe that Travis violated Penal Code section 641.”
Mattel, Inc. v. Mga Ent., Inc., 782 F. Supp. 2d 911 (C.D. Cal. 2011).
· cites it 2× “In this case, Mattel alleges a violation of California Penal Code Section 641.3, which makes it unlawful to “offer[ ] or give[ ] an employee money or any thing of value” in exchange for “using or agreeing to use his or her position for the benefit” of the person delivering the…”
Crosstalk Prods., Inc. v. Jacobson, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5611 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “(Pen. Code, § 641.3.) 4 The commercial bribery statute provides that either (1) an “employee” who solicits or receives money or anything of value (other than in trust for his “employer”), “corruptly” and in return for using his position to benefit another person, or (2) the…”
Collier v. Superior Court, 6 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 526 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “The petitioner in this case reported his suspicion that other employees were currently engaged in illegal conduct at the job, specifically conduct which may have violated laws against bribery and kickbacks (Pen. Code, § 641.3); embezzlement (Pen. Code, § 504); tax evasion (Rev.”
In Re the Extradition of Chan Seong-I, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1149 (D.N.M. 2004).
“Cal.Penal Code § 641.3 ( felony punishable by a term of im *1160 prisonment for more than a year if the amount of the bribe exceeds one thousand dollars); Colo Rev.”
Bryant v. Mattel, Inc., 573 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (C.D. Cal. 2007).
“*1267 CaLPenal Code § 641.3. Several allegations support a violation of § 641.”
In re: EpiPen Direct Purchaser Litig. (D. Minnesota 2023).
· cites it 6× “Plaintiffs cannot plausibly allege a RICO predicate act under California Penal Code § 641.3 because the statute does not reach conduct by business organizations.”
United States v. Acharayya Rupak (9th Cir. 2019).
“Here, even if the district court erred in deeming the alleged factual basis sufficient to satisfy the elements of California’s commercial bribery statute, Cal. Penal Code § 641.3 (d)(3), we conclude that any such error was not plain.”
People v. Artykov CA1/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020).
“On July 13, 2017, a grand jury indicted defendant on one felony count of commercial bribery (Pen. Code, § 641.3, subd. (a)).1 The indictment alleged that between September 1, 2013, and January 30, 2016, defendant unlawfully offered and gave more than $1,000 to McVicker.”
Am. Constructors, Inc. v. Super. Ct. CA2/7 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).
“) 4 Penal Code section 641.3 provides that commercial bribery is committed when “(a) Any employee who solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept money or anything of value from a person other than his, or her employer, other than in trust for the employer, corruptly and without the…”
Swaidan v. Pavlovic CA2/7 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015).
“16, arguing his statements about Swaidan’s misconduct to management at Quixote Studios constituted protected First Amendment activity because exposing commercial bribery, a crime (Pen. Code, § 641.3), in connection with the construction of facilities open to the public is an…”
Hambarian v. Superior Court, 105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 566 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).
“[5] Prosecutors generally support the reasoning of the case. (See Trask, Comment Note: Post Eubanks and Insurers Funding Prosecutions in High Tech Cases (Jul.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.