Mass. Gen. Laws » Part I Title XIX Chapter 128A
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 128A, § 13C (2026)

Influencing owner, trainer, jockey or agent to affect result of race

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

[ Text of section effective until December 15, 2027. Repealed by 2011, 194, Sec. 39. See 2011, 194, Sec. 112 as amended by 2014, 165, Sec. 192; 2016, 176, Sec. 12B; 2017, 56, Sec. 14; 2018, 159, Sec. 14; 2019, 47, Sec. 14; 2020, 1, Sec. 14; 2020, 106, Sec. 14; 2021, 27, Sec. 14; 2022, 128, Sec. 14; 2023, 26, Sec. 20; and 2025, 73, Sec. 73.]

  Section 13C. No person shall influence, induce or conspire or connive with, or attempt so to do, any owner, trainer, jockey, agent, driver, groom or other person associated with or interested in or having charge of or access to any horse or dog entered or to be entered in a race for the purpose of fraudulently affecting the ultimate result of such race. Whoever violates this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred nor more than three thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1975–1976 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Nelson, 346 N.E.2d 839 (Mass. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Nelson, 346 N.E.2d 839 (Mass. 1976). · cites it 2× “To conclude that the Commonwealth must show more than this would be tantamount to saying that a person who joined a conspiracy to "fix" a horse race, but who limited his participation to supplying the funds to be used in the scheme, and who scrupulously avoided acquiring…”
Commonwealth v. Nelson, 323 N.E.2d 752 (Mass. App. Ct. 1975). “” 9 We express no opinion whether Nelson could have been convicted on a charge of conspiring under or to violate one or more of the provisions of G. L. c. 128A, § 13C (n. 8). 10 We shall deal later with a similar motion filed by Macarelli.”
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.