UCMJ Article 122a: Receiving Stolen Property

Theft is rarely a single act. Stolen goods have to go somewhere, and a market of buyers, fences, and storage points is what makes property crime profitable. Article 122a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is the provision that reaches that downstream market within the armed forces. It punishes the service member who knowingly takes in stolen property, even when that person had nothing to do with the original theft. The article is codified at 10 U.S.C. 922a, and its number is itself a point of confusion. Before 1 January 2019 there was no Article 122a; receiving stolen property was prosecuted under the general article, Article 134. The Military Justice Act of 2016 carved the offense out of Article 134 and gave it a dedicated statute, effective that date. Sources that still place this offense under Article 134 are describing the pre-2019 code.

What Article 122a covers

The statute is short. It applies to any person subject to the code who wrongfully receives, buys, or conceals stolen property, knowing the property to be stolen property. Three things in that sentence carry the entire offense: the act, the character of the property, and the accused’s knowledge.

The act can take three forms. Receiving means taking possession or control of the property. Buying means acquiring it through a transaction involving payment. Concealing means hiding the property or otherwise acting to keep it from the rightful owner or the authorities. Any one of the three is enough; the government need not prove all of them. What unites them is that the accused exercised some dominion over the property knowing where it came from.

The property must actually have been stolen. If the goods were never stolen in the first place, the offense does not exist, no matter what the accused believed. And the conduct must be wrongful, meaning without legal justification or excuse, which separates a knowing fence from someone who lawfully takes custody of property for a legitimate reason.

What the government must prove

The decisive element is knowledge. The accused must have known the property was stolen at the time of receiving, buying, or concealing it. A person who buys a discounted television in good faith and only later suspects its origin has not committed this offense at the moment of purchase, because the knowledge has to exist when the act occurs.

Because few people announce that they are dealing in stolen goods, knowledge is almost always established through circumstantial evidence rather than a confession. Courts look at the surrounding facts: a purchase price far below market value, a seller who cannot explain how the goods came into their hands, identification marks or serial numbers belonging to another owner, efforts to hide the property, or the accused’s awareness of recent thefts in the unit or area. An unusually low price is a recurring signal. Standing alone it is not conclusive, but combined with other circumstances it can support the inference that a reasonable person in the accused’s position would have recognized the property as stolen. The fact-finder weighs the totality of the circumstances rather than any single indicator.

The government must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the act of receiving or buying is often undisputed, the contested question at trial is usually the accused’s state of mind.

Maximum punishment

Article 122a leaves the punishment to be set by the Manual for Courts-Martial, and the Manual ties the ceiling to the value of the property, mirroring the structure used for larceny.

When the value of the property is $1,000 or less, the maximum punishment is a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for one year. When the value exceeds $1,000, the maximum rises to a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for three years. Value is assessed at the fair market value of the property at the time and place of the offense.

For offenses committed on or after 27 December 2023, the military judge imposes the sentence in non-capital general and special courts-martial, working within sentencing parameters and criteria rather than from a single figure applied at a panel’s discretion. The authorized ceilings above remain the outer limits, but the confinement range available in a particular case is governed by the current parameters, which should be confirmed against the controlling Manual for the date of the offense. For earlier offenses, the prior practice of adjudging a sentence up to the authorized maximum continues to apply.

Defenses

The defenses most often turn on the knowledge element, because that is what the offense is built on. A genuine lack of knowledge that the property was stolen is a complete defense; if the accused did not know, the central element is missing. A claim of right, where the accused honestly believed the property was their own, defeats the wrongfulness of the conduct. Innocent receipt is a related theme: a person who took the property without knowing its status, and who returned it or reported it on learning the truth, has not committed the knowing offense.

The defense may also attack the property element directly by showing that the goods were not in fact stolen, which removes a required element regardless of what anyone believed. And because knowledge is usually proven by inference, the defense often contests the strength of those inferences, offering an innocent explanation for a low price or an ordinary account of how the accused came to possess the property.

How it is charged and related offenses

Article 122a fills a specific gap in the theft offenses. The thief who takes the property is charged under Article 121, larceny, and a person who helped commit that theft, including one who served as a lookout, is liable as a principal under Article 77. A person cannot be both the thief and the receiver of the same property from themselves; receiving stolen property is the offense for the separate person who acquires the goods after the theft is complete. That division is what gives Article 122a its independent role, allowing the law to reach the person who profits from theft without having taken part in it.

The military character of the property can sharpen the response. Stolen government equipment, particularly weapons, communications gear, or sensitive items, raises accountability and readiness concerns, and conduct involving such property may also draw a charge under Article 108, which addresses the loss, damage, destruction, or wrongful disposition of military property of the United States. Investigations typically rely on serial-number tracking, property-accountability and hand-receipt records, pawnshop and online-marketplace records, and financial analysis to trace property from the original theft to the person who received it.

Sources

• 10 U.S.C. 922a, Article 122a, Receiving stolen property: https://law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/922a
• 10 U.S.C. 921, Article 121, Larceny and wrongful appropriation (the related theft offense and value tiers): https://law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/921
• Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, Part IV (Punitive Articles), Article 122a: https://jsc.defense.gov

This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. It describes military law and procedure of public record, does not address any individual case, and does not create an attorney-client relationship.