UCMJ Article 122a: Receiving Stolen Property

A service member who never stole anything can still face a court-martial for what happens to stolen goods afterward. When someone knowingly takes in, buys, or hides property that another person stole, military law treats that conduct as a distinct crime. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, this offense lives in Article 122a, codified at 10 U.S.C. 922a. It was relocated from the Article 134 general article into its own standalone article as part of the Military Justice Act of 2016, effective 1 January 2019.

The offense exists because receiving stolen property sustains theft. A thief who has no buyer and no place to stash goods has far less reason to steal. By reaching the person on the receiving end, Article 122a closes that loop and discourages the informal markets in pilfered government equipment and personal belongings that can develop within a unit.

The elements the government must prove

Article 122a is short. The statute punishes anyone subject to the UCMJ “who wrongfully receives, buys, or conceals stolen property, knowing the property to be stolen property.” Broken into elements, the prosecution must establish:

  1. That certain property was wrongfully received, bought, or concealed by the accused.
  2. That the property was stolen.
  3. That the accused knew the property was stolen at the time of receiving, buying, or concealing it.
  4. That the receiving, buying, or concealing was wrongful.

Each element matters independently. The property must actually have been stolen, not merely suspected to be. The accused must have done one of the three covered acts. And, critically, knowledge must exist at the moment of the transaction.

What “knowing the property to be stolen” requires

Knowledge is the heart of this offense and the element most often litigated. The government must prove the accused actually knew the property was stolen, not merely that a careful person might have wondered. That said, knowledge can be proven by circumstantial evidence. A price far below market value, a furtive transaction, an implausible explanation for how the seller obtained the item, or possession of property that was obviously government-issued can all support an inference of knowledge. Mere suspicion, standing alone, is generally not enough. The factfinder must conclude the accused knew.

This is the line that separates an innocent buyer from a criminal one. A person who buys a laptop at a normal price from someone who appears to own it, with no reason to think otherwise, lacks the required knowledge.

Maximum punishment

Punishment under Article 122a is tied to the value of the property, as set by the Manual for Courts-Martial. The current value threshold is 1,000 dollars.

  • Property valued at 1,000 dollars or less: bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for up to 1 year.
  • Property valued at more than 1,000 dollars: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for up to 3 years.

These are maximums. The actual sentence depends on the facts, the accused’s record, and the forum. For offenses committed on or after 27 December 2023, sentencing follows the revised procedures of the Military Justice Act, including military judge sentencing, but the punishment ceilings for this offense remain as stated.

Common defenses

Because knowledge is central, the most direct defense is its absence. Relevant defenses include:

  • Lack of knowledge: the accused did not know, and the circumstances would not have made an honest person aware, that the property was stolen.
  • Honest mistake of fact: the accused genuinely believed the seller or giver had the right to transfer the property.
  • The property was not in fact stolen: if the government cannot prove the goods were stolen, the charge fails.
  • Lawful acquisition: the accused obtained the property through legitimate channels.

Value can also be contested. Because the maximum turns on whether the property exceeds 1,000 dollars, disputes over valuation can affect the available punishment.

How Article 122a differs from neighboring offenses

The closest comparison is larceny under Article 121 (10 U.S.C. 921). Article 121 punishes the act of stealing. Article 122a punishes a different person, or a different stage: handling the goods after the theft, with knowledge. A single course of conduct can implicate both articles when, for example, one person steals and another knowingly conceals.

Article 122a is also distinct from robbery under Article 122, which involves taking property from a person by force or fear. And where several people agree in advance to receive and distribute stolen goods, conspiracy under Article 81 may also be charged alongside the substantive offense.

Frequently asked questions

Does the property have to be government property?
No. Article 122a applies to any stolen property, whether it belongs to the government, a fellow service member, or a civilian. The source of the property does not control whether the offense applies, although stolen government equipment frequently features in these cases.

Is intent to profit required?
No. The offense is complete on knowingly receiving, buying, or concealing stolen property. A financial motive is not an element. Concealing goods to help a thief, with no expectation of payment, can still violate the article.

How brief can the contact with the property be?
Even short-term concealment can qualify if the accused knowingly handled stolen property to keep it hidden. The duration of possession affects the facts and the sentence but does not, by itself, eliminate liability.

Can the offense apply off base or overseas?
Yes. The UCMJ follows the service member. Knowingly receiving or concealing stolen property off the installation, including outside the United States, can be charged if the offense is otherwise established.

What if the accused thought the property was abandoned?
A genuine and reasonable belief that property was abandoned rather than stolen goes to the knowledge element. If the accused did not know the property was stolen, an essential element is missing.

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.

Sources

  • 10 U.S.C. 922a, Article 122a, Receiving stolen property: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/922a
  • 10 U.S.C. 921, Article 121, Larceny and wrongful appropriation: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/921
  • Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 edition), Part IV: https://jsc.defense.gov/Military-Law/Current-Publications-and-Updates/
  • Military Attorney Joseph L. Jordan, Articles of the UCMJ

Related:

  1. UCMJ Article 87b: Breach of Restriction Restriction is one of the milder forms of military restraint. It does not put a service member behind a locked door; it confines movement to defined limits, such as a......
  2. UCMJ Article 103: Spies Among the offenses in military law, few carry the gravity of spying in wartime. A person who infiltrates a military area under false colors to gather intelligence for an enemy......
  3. UCMJ Article 123a: Making, Drawing, or Uttering a Check Without Sufficient Funds A bounced check is usually a banking problem. It becomes a criminal one when the person who wrote it knew the account could not cover it and used it to......
  4. UCMJ Article 129: Burglary For most of its history, burglary in military law carried the old common-law trappings: it had to involve a dwelling house, and it had to happen at night. That is......
  5. UCMJ Article 109a: Mail Matter: Wrongful Taking or Opening For deployed service members and their families, the mail is often a lifeline. A unit mailroom may hold birthday packages, official correspondence, prescription medications, and letters that carry real weight......
  6. UCMJ Article 131c: Misprision of a Serious Offense A service member who learns that someone has committed a serious crime, and then takes steps to hide it, can be prosecuted under Article 131c of the Uniform Code of......
  7. UCMJ Article 118: Murder Murder is the most serious offense in the military justice system, and it is one of the few that can expose a service member to the death penalty. Article 118......
  8. UCMJ Article 130: Stalking Repeated, unwanted attention can become a crime long before it turns into a physical attack. Following someone day after day, flooding a person with threatening messages, or watching their movements......
  9. UCMJ Article 89: Disrespect Toward or Assault of a Superior Commissioned Officer The relationship between a service member and a superior commissioned officer rests on a baseline of respect and physical safety. Article 89 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice protects......
  10. UCMJ Article 105: Forgery Military operations run on paper and its electronic equivalents: leave forms, pay vouchers, contracts, orders, identification cards. When someone falsifies a signature or alters a document so it appears to......
  11. UCMJ Article 84: Breach of Medical Quarantine When a contagious illness threatens a warship, a barracks, or a forward-deployed unit, commanders and medical officers can place affected personnel under quarantine to keep an outbreak from spreading. A......
  12. UCMJ Article 134: Self-Injury Without Intent to Avoid Service Not every intentional self-injury in the military is treated the same way. The Uniform Code of Military Justice draws a line based on why the injury was inflicted. When a......
  13. UCMJ Article 129: Unlawful Entry Walking into another unit's barracks without permission, slipping into a restricted storage area to look around, or entering a building with no authority and no invitation can expose a service......
  14. UCMJ Article 107a: Parole Violation A service member who earns parole from military confinement leaves the disciplinary barracks under a written promise to obey specific conditions. Breaking that promise is itself a criminal offense. Article......
  15. UCMJ Article 128a: Maiming A service member who deliberately leaves another person permanently scarred, blinded, or missing the use of a limb has done something the military treats as far graver than an ordinary......