Section 17A. Except as permitted under chapter 23N, whoever uses a telephone, internet or other communications technology or, being the occupant in control of premises where a telephone, internet or other communications technology is located or a subscriber for such communications technology, knowingly permits another to use a telephone, internet or other communications technology so located or for which such person subscribes, as the case may be, for the purpose of accepting wagers or bets, or buying or selling of pools, or for placing all or any portion of a wager with another, upon the result of a trial or contest of skill, speed or endurance of man, beast, bird or machine, or upon the result of an athletic game or contest, or upon the lottery called the numbers game, or for the purpose of reporting the same to a headquarters or booking office, or who under another name or otherwise falsely or fictitiously procures telephone, internet or other communications technology service for oneself or another for such purposes, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $2,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 1 year; provided, however, that this section shall not apply to use of telephones or other devices or means to place wagers authorized pursuant to the provisions of section 5C of chapter 128A.
Notes of Decisions
Commonwealth v. Vitello, 327 N.E.2d 819 (Mass. 1975).
· cites it 4× “G.L.c. 271, § 17A (using a telephone for the purpose of accepting wagers and registering bets).”
Commonwealth v. Sousa, 600 N.E.2d 1012 (Mass. App. Ct. 1992).
· cites it 4× “Instead of redefining the word “accepting” or discussing the word “accommodating,” the judge, without referring to G. L. c. 271, § 17A, or the particular indictment to which the supplemental instruction pertained, defined the word “received.”
Commonwealth v. Todisco, 294 N.E.2d 860 (Mass. 1973).
· cites it 2× “It was not to prevent the repair of a telephone or the replacement of a missing component part of the telephone in order to make it operable.”
United States v. Gianelli, 585 F. Supp. 2d 150 (D. Mass. 2008).
· cites it 2× “One of the renewal warrant applications stated that the warrant was being obtained to investigate a violation of M.G.L. c. 271, § 17A, which prohibits the registering and placing of bets over the telephone.”
Commonwealth v. Pope, 241 N.E.2d 848 (Mass. 1968).
“271, § 7); in the other, with using telephones for the purpose of accepting wagers and bets upon the lottery called the numbers game (G. L. c. 271, § 17A). Before the trial commenced the defendant presented motions to suppress and motions to dismiss the complaints.”
Commonwealth v. DiAntonio, 395 N.E.2d 358 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979).
“DiAntonio was convicted on indictments charging him with using a telephone to register bets (G. L. c. 271, § 17A), and with a second offense within a five-year period of being found in a place (11 Colonial Road, Milford) with betting apparatus and devices.”
In re Proceedings Before a Special Grand Jury, 542 N.E.2d 316 (Mass. App. Ct. 1989).
“271, § 16A — making supervision of at least four persons who are engaging in illegal gambling activities a criminal act; G. L. c. 271, § 17A — making the use of a telephone, or being the occupant in control of premises where the *699 telephone is located for the purpose of…”
Commonwealth v. Carpenter, 491 N.E.2d 1077 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986).
“271, § 17, and the illegal use of a telephone for gaming purposes, a violation of G. L. c. 271, § 17A. The Commonwealth’s case consisted chiefly of wiretap evidence, gambling paraphernalia obtained as a result of a search, and related testimony from police witnesses.”
United States v. Lyons (1st Cir. 2014).
“Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 271, § 17A. It also criminalizes the operation and patronizing of gaming houses, id.”
Assad v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 2 Mass. Supp. 142 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1980).
“271, §47, however, encompass instances of violation of any aspect of the whole of chapter 271; hence, the procedures are not restricted to any pf its constituent parts.”
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.