Mass. Gen. Laws » Part IV Title I Chapter 268A
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268A, § 2 (2026)

Corrupt gifts, offers or promises to influence official acts; corruption of witnesses

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 2. (a) Whoever, directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any state, county or municipal employee, or to any person who has been selected to be such an employee, or to any member of the judiciary, or who offers or promises any such employee or any member of the judiciary, or any person who has been selected to be such an employee or member of the judiciary, to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent

(1) to influence any official act or any act within the official responsibility of such employee or member of the judiciary or person who has been selected to be such employee or member of the judiciary, or

(2) to influence such an employee or member of the judiciary or person who has been selected to be such an employee or member of the judiciary, to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud on the commonwealth or a state, county or municipal agency, or

(3) to induce such an employee or member of the judiciary or person who has been selected to be such an employee or member of the judiciary to do or omit to do any act in violation of his lawful duty; or

(b) Whoever, being a state, county or municipal employee or a member of the judiciary or a person selected to be such an employee or member of the judiciary, directly or indirectly, corruptly asks, demands, exacts, solicits, seeks, accepts, receives or agrees to receive anything of value for himself or for any other person or entity, in return for

(1) being influenced in his performance of any official act or any act within his official responsibility, or

(2) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the commonwealth or on a state, county or municipal agency, or

(3) being induced to do or omit to do any acts in violation of his official duty; or

(c) Whoever, directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person or any other person as a witness upon a trial, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either house or both houses of the general court, or any agency, commission or officer authorized by the laws of the commonwealth to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such witness to absent himself therefrom; or

(d) Whoever, directly or indirectly, corruptly asks, demands, exacts, solicits, seeks, accepts, receives or agrees to receive anything of value for himself or for any other person or entity in return for influence upon the testimony under oath or affirmation of himself or any other person as a witness upon any such trial, hearing or other proceeding or in return for the absence of himself or any other person therefrom;—shall be punished by a fine of not more than $100,000, or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 10 years, or in a jail or house of correction for not more than 21/2 years, or both; and in the event of final conviction shall be incapable of holding any office of honor, trust or profit under the commonwealth or under any state, county or municipal agency.

Clauses (c) and (d) shall not be construed to prohibit the payment or receipt of witness fees provided by law or the payment by the party upon whose behalf a witness is called and receipt by a witness of the reasonable cost of travel and subsistence incurred and the reasonable value of time lost in attendance at any such trial, hearing or proceeding, or, in the case of expert witnesses, involving a technical or professional opinion, a reasonable fee for time spent in the preparation of such opinion, in appearing or testifying.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1965–2023 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Canon, 368 N.E.2d 1181 (Mass. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Canon, 368 N.E.2d 1181 (Mass. 1977). · cites it 8× “On April 8, 1974, the defendant was indicted for violation of G.L.c. 268A, §§ 2 ( b ), 3 ( b ), 17 ( a ), and 19.”
Commonwealth v. Tobin, 467 N.E.2d 826 (Mass. 1984). · cites it 6× “Reinstein, the former mayor of Revere, were indicted for three violations of G. L. c. 268A, § 2 (b). 1 The indictments charged that Reinstein and Tobin solicited, agreed to receive, and received money from Simon Sharigian *606 in return for Reinstein’s being influenced in…”
United States v. Sawyer, 85 F.3d 713 (1st Cir. 1996). · cites it 2× “2d 812, 821 (1976) (finding gratuity offense to be a lesser included offense of Massachusetts bribery statute, Mass. Gen. L. ch. 268A, § 2, which adds the element of “corrupt intent” i.”
Commonwealth v. Murphy, 612 N.E.2d 1137 (Mass. 1993). · cites it 4× “Murphy, appeals from his conviction of bribery, in violation of G. L. c. 268A, § 2 (a) (1990 ed.). 1 Murphy alleges that the judge erred in *162 amending the indictment and in his supplemental instruction to the jury on reasonable doubt.”
Commonwealth v. Bongarzone, 455 N.E.2d 1183 (Mass. 1983). · cites it 2× “The defendants Bongarzone and Carfagna were also convicted of violating G. L. c. 268A, § 2 (a) (bribery), and received concurrent sentences of from two to three years.”
Commonwealth v. Borans, 393 N.E.2d 911 (Mass. 1979). · cites it 2× “He sentenced Borans to terms of two and one-half to three years’ imprisonment for each of Borans’ convictions of violations of G. L. c. 268A, § 2(b). The eight sentences were to be served concurrently with the perjury and subornation of perjury sentences.”
Commonwealth v. Thorpe, 424 N.E.2d 250 (Mass. 1981). · cites it 2× “Prior to trial in the Superior Court on the charge of corrupting a municipal official under G.L.c. 268A, § 2 ( a ) (2), the defendant Francis Thorpe moved, pursuant to G.”
Commonwealth v. Dutney, 348 N.E.2d 812 (Mass. App. Ct. 1976). · cites it 3× “Dutney and Grondine (defendants) have been convicted by a jury on separate indictments laid under the provisions of G. L. c. 268A, §§ 2(6), 3(6) and 17 (a) , 2 respectively, and both have appealed.”
Delaney v. Town of Abington, 890 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2018). “Moreover, we agree with the District Court that it was not reasonable for Delaney to believe that, in establishing the new ticketing policy, the defendants violated the Massachusetts anti-bribery statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268A, § 2(b), which is the only criminal statute that…”
Commonwealth v. Borans, 446 N.E.2d 703 (Mass. 1983). · cites it 2× ““The judge sentenced Borans to concurrent terms of from six to nine years’ imprisonment for the crimes of perjury and subornation of perjury.”
Commonwealth v. Schoening, 396 N.E.2d 1004 (Mass. 1979). · cites it 2× “The defendant, a State employee concerned in the awarding of vocational education grants, was charged in two indictments with conspiracy to bribe a public official, as described in G. L. c. 268A, § 2, and c. 274, § 7, and conspiracy to steal from the Commonwealth, in violation…”
Commonwealth v. Stasiun, 206 N.E.2d 672 (Mass. 1965). · cites it 2× “For example, G.L.c. 268A, § 2 (b), provides, "Whoever, being a state, county or municipal employee .”
Show all 50 citing cases →
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268A, § 2(6) — 4 cases
Commonwealth v. Dutney, 348 N.E.2d 812 (Mass. App. Ct. 1976). “Dutney and Grondine (defendants) have been convicted by a jury on separate indictments laid under the provisions of G. L. c. 268A, §§ 2(6), 3(6) and 17 (a) , 2 respectively, and both have appealed.”
Commonwealth v. Downey, 429 N.E.2d 41 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981).
Commonwealth v. Famigletti, 354 N.E.2d 890 (Mass. App. Ct. 1976).
Commonwealth v. Qualter, 473 N.E.2d 729 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985).
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268A, § 2(a) — 3 cases
United States v. Sawyer, 85 F.3d 713 (1st Cir. 1996). “2d 812, 821 (1976) (finding gratuity offense to be a lesser included offense of Massachusetts bribery statute, Mass. Gen. L. ch. 268A, § 2, which adds the element of “corrupt intent” i.”
Commonwealth v. Williams, 903 N.E.2d 222 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009).
Commonwealth v. Corey, 408 N.E.2d 894 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980).
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268A, § 2(a)(1) — 1 case
United States v. O'Brien, 994 F. Supp. 2d 167 (D. Mass. 2014).
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268A, § 2(b) — 8 cases
Delaney v. Town of Abington, 890 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2018). “Moreover, we agree with the District Court that it was not reasonable for Delaney to believe that, in establishing the new ticketing policy, the defendants violated the Massachusetts anti-bribery statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268A, § 2(b), which is the only criminal statute that…”
Commonwealth v. Borans, 393 N.E.2d 911 (Mass. 1979). “He sentenced Borans to terms of two and one-half to three years’ imprisonment for each of Borans’ convictions of violations of G. L. c. 268A, § 2(b). The eight sentences were to be served concurrently with the perjury and subornation of perjury sentences.”
Commonwealth v. Burke, 481 N.E.2d 494 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985).
Tobin v. Sheriff of Suffolk Cnty., 385 N.E.2d 972 (Mass. 1979).
United States v. Ferber, 966 F. Supp. 90 (D. Mass. 1997).
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268A, § 2(c) — 2 cases
Commonwealth v. Boyer, 755 N.E.2d 767 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001).
Olszewski v. Berube, 1 Mass. L. Rptr. 274 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1993).
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268A, § 2(h) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Borans, 393 N.E.2d 911 (Mass. 1979). “He sentenced Borans to terms of two and one-half to three years’ imprisonment for each of Borans’ convictions of violations of G. L. c. 268A, § 2(b). The eight sentences were to be served concurrently with the perjury and subornation of perjury sentences.”
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.