Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 271, § 39 (2026)

Gifts to influence business affairs; threats

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 39. (a) Whoever, in relation to any transaction or matter concerning the business affairs of an employer, principal or beneficiary (1) offers, gives or agrees to give an agent or fiduciary of another person any benefit or anything of value with intent to influence the recipient's conduct, or (2) as an agent or fiduciary, solicits, accepts or agrees to accept any benefit or anything of value from another person who is not an employee, principal, or beneficiary upon an agreement or understanding that such benefit or thing of value will influence his conduct, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years, or by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars, or both.

(b) Whoever, verbally or by a written or printed communication, threatens an economic injury to another, or threatens to deprive another of an economic opportunity, with intent to compel that person to do any act, involving the use or disposition of anything of value against his will, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years, or in the house of correction for not more than two years, or by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars, or both. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to any labor disputes as defined in section two of chapter one hundred and fifty A.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1970–2018 · leading case: United States v. Ferber, 966 F. Supp. 90 (D. Mass. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Ferber, 966 F. Supp. 90 (D. Mass. 1997). · cites it 2× “Prior to sentencing, however, this Court, sua sponte, dismissed those counts for the reasons discussed herein.”

Commonwealth v. Kelley, 268 N.E.2d 132 (Mass. 1971). “Callahan was then an executive officer of the Commonwealth; and they would constitute a crime under G. L. c. 271, § 39, 3 if he was not *81 then an executive officer of the Commonwealth.”

Commonwealth v. Schafer, 594 N.E.2d 875 (Mass. App. Ct. 1992). · cites it 4× “His primary contention is that the statute, G. L. c. 271, § 39(6), as amended by St. 1980, c.”

604 Columbus Avenue Realty Trust v. Capitol Bank & Trust Co. (In Re 604 Columbus Avenue Realty Trust), 119 B.R. 350 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1990). “§§ 215 and 656; G.L. c. 271, § 39. The purpose of each of these statutes is to protect the economic interests of banks (or in the case of G.”

Tomsic v. Lautieri (In Re Tri-Star Tech. Co.), 257 B.R. 629 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2001). “The Trustee claims that the Lautieris and Accelerated engaged in both mail fraud and wire fraud and added at trial their violation of Mass.Gen.L. ch. 271 § 39 (prohibiting bribery or gifts to influence business affairs).”

In Re the Extradition of Chan Seong-I, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1149 (D.N.M. 2004). “§ 14:73 (misdemeanor); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 271 § 39 (felony subject to five years imprisonment); Mich.”

Natale v. Espy Corp., 2 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D. Mass. 2014). “” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 271, § 39 (b). Defendants violated this statute, according to Plaintiff, “knowing that the Estate was unable to pay federal and state taxes, interest and penalties, and deprive[d] it of benefits of its ownership in Espy.”

Commonwealth v. Kelley, 260 N.E.2d 691 (Mass. 1970). · cites it 2× “268, § 9, or G. L. c. 271, § 39. Thus, the means as described in the indictment, would constitute crimes under G.”

Commonwealth v. Hammond, 736 N.E.2d 398 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000). “Compare G. L. c. 271, § 39 (threat of “economic injury”).”

Holmes Prods. Corp. v. Dana Lighting, Inc., 958 F. Supp. 27 (D. Mass. 1997). “After objecting to the interrogatory as “over-broad and unduly burdensome”, Holmes responded that the allegations include acts or threats involving extortion chargeable under state law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year pursuant to M.G.L. c. 271 § 39. The…”

N. J. Gendron Lumber Co. v. Great N. Homes, Inc., 395 N.E.2d 457 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979). “The offense of commercial bribery has also been developed by statute, G. L. c. 271, § 39, in Massachusetts (where the Great Northern principal office was located) and N.”

Gov't of Bermuda v. Lahey Clinic, Inc. (D. Mass. 2018). “§ 1956 ), the Massachusetts Commercial Bribery Statute (G.L. c.271 § 39), and mail and wire fraud statutes ( 18 U.”

— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 271, § 39(6) — 1 case

Commonwealth v. Schafer, 594 N.E.2d 875 (Mass. App. Ct. 1992). “His primary contention is that the statute, G. L. c. 271, § 39(6), as amended by St. 1980, c.”

— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 271, § 39(a)(2) — 1 case

United States v. Ferber, 966 F. Supp. 90 (D. Mass. 1997). “Prior to sentencing, however, this Court, sua sponte, dismissed those counts for the reasons discussed herein.”

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.