Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 609.86 (2026)

Commercial Bribery

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Definition.

"Corruptly" means that the actor intends the action to injure or defraud:

(1) the actor's employer or principal; or

(2) the employer or principal of the person to whom the actor offers, gives or agrees to give the bribe or from whom the actor requests, receives or agrees to receive the bribe.

Subd. 2.Acts constituting.

Whoever does any of the following, when not consistent with usually accepted business practices, is guilty of commercial bribery and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 3:

(1) corruptly offers, gives, or agrees to give, directly or indirectly, any benefit, consideration, compensation, or reward to any employee, agent or fiduciary of a person with the intent to influence the person's performance of duties as an employee, agent, or fiduciary in relation to the person's employer's or principal's business; or

(2) being an employee, agent or fiduciary of a person, corruptly requests, receives or agrees to receive, directly or indirectly, from another person any benefit, consideration, compensation, or reward with the understanding or agreement to be influenced in the performance of duties as an employee, agent, or fiduciary in relation to the employer's or principal's business.

Subd. 3.Sentence.

Whoever commits commercial bribery may be sentenced as follows:

(1) to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both, if the value of the benefit, consideration, compensation or reward is greater than $500;

(2) in all other cases where the value of the benefit, consideration, compensation or reward is $500 or less, to imprisonment for not more than 90 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $1,000; provided, however, in any prosecution of the value of the benefit, consideration, compensation or reward received by the defendant within any six-month period may be aggregated and the defendant charged accordingly in applying the provisions of this subdivision; provided that when two or more offenses are committed by the same person in two or more counties, the accused may be prosecuted in any county in which one of the offenses was committed, or all of the offenses aggregated under this clause.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2021 · leading case: Cont'l 332 Fund, LLC v. Albertelli, 317 F. Supp. 3d 1124 (M.D. Fla. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cont'l 332 Fund, LLC v. Albertelli, 317 F. Supp. 3d 1124 (M.D. Fla. 2018). “43 ; Minn. Stat. § 609.86 . Here, the Third Amended Complaint alleges that from 2011 to 2017, ACI, the Albertellis, Westcore I, Kozlowski, Salat and Burke paid at least $1,464,735.”

Metge v. Cent. Neighborhood Improvement Ass'n, 649 N.W.2d 488 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 609.86 (2000) (commercial-bribery criminal statute).”

Joseph P. McGraw v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 384 F.3d 965 (8th Cir. 2004). “2 Finally, the Tax Court’s finding that such kickbacks were not consistent with “usually accepted business practices,” Minn.Stat. § 609.86, subd. 2, was not clearly erroneous.”

United States v. Louis Parise, Jr., 159 F.3d 790 (3rd Cir. 1998). “125 ; Minnesota, see Minn.Stat. Ann. § 609.86; Mississippi, see Miss.”

In Re the Extradition of Chan Seong-I, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1149 (D.N.M. 2004). “125 (misdemeanor); Minn.Stat. § 609.86 (felony subject to five years imprisonment if value of benefit exceeds five hundred dollars); Miss.”

Comm'r, 2002 T.C. Memo. 314 (1970). · cites it 2× “162-18(b)(3), Income Tax Regs. Thus, pursuant to section 162(c)(2) , no deduction is permitted for the cash payments to Miller.”

In re: EpiPen Direct Purchaser Litig. (D. Minnesota 2021). · cites it 2× “§ 2C:21-10; Minn. Stat. § 609.86 , subd. 2; Mo. Rev. Stat.”

Joseph P. McGraw v. CIR (8th Cir. 2004). · cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 609.86 . The Tax Court's holding that this state law is generally enforced was not clearly erroneous.”

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.