570.150. Commercial bribery — penalty. — 1. A person commits the offense of commercial bribery if he or she:
(1) Solicits, accepts or agrees to accept any benefit as consideration for knowingly violating or agreeing to violate a duty of fidelity, which he or she is subject to as:
(a) An agent or employee of another;
(b) A trustee, guardian or other fiduciary;
(c) A lawyer, physician, accountant, appraiser or other professional adviser or informant;
(d) An officer, director, partner, manager or other participant in the direction of the affairs of an incorporated or unincorporated association; or
(e) An arbitrator or other purportedly disinterested adjudicator or referee;
(2) As a person who holds himself or herself out to the public as being engaged in the business of making disinterested selection, appraisal or criticism of commodities or services, solicits, accepts or agrees to accept any benefit to influence his or her selection, appraisal or criticism;
(3) Confers or offers or agrees to confer any benefit the acceptance of which would be criminal under subdivisions (1) and (2) of this section.
2. The offense of commercial bribery is a class A misdemeanor.
Notes of Decisions
Hughes v. Bodine Aluminum, Inc., 328 S.W.3d 353 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 4× “1 Background and Procedure Hughes filed his third amended petition for damages asserting wrongful discharge in violation of public policy for refusing to assist Dismuke and others in the commission of the crime of commercial bribery under Section 570.150. 2 In the alternative,…”
Beasley v. Affiliated Hosp. Prods., 713 S.W.2d 557 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “140 RSMo [Deceptive Business Practice]; § 570.150 RSMo [Commercial Bribery]; § 570.”
State v. Mitchell, 407 S.W.3d 664 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 3× “In claiming there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of stealing, Mitchell argues he should have been charged with commercial bribery pursuant to Section 570.150 RSMo (2000). However, as the State notes, the prosecutor has discretion to determine the charge to…”
Mitchell v. Jennings (E.D. Mo. 2023).
· cites it 3× “In claiming there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of stealing, Mitchell argues he should have been charged with commercial bribery pursuant to Section 570.150 RSMo (2000). However, as the State notes, the prosecutor has discretion to determine the charge to…”
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.