UCMJ Article 131e: Prevention of Authorized Seizure of Property

When investigators move to seize property, the law expects it to remain available for that seizure. A service member who destroys, removes, or disposes of property to keep it out of authorized hands obstructs the process before it can finish. The Uniform Code of Military Justice addresses this conduct in Article 131e, codified at 10 U.S.C. 931e. The offense was carved out of the Article 134 general article and given its own standalone article by the Military Justice Act of 2016, effective 1 January 2019.

The provision protects the integrity of searches and seizures. Contraband flushed away during an inspection, a weapon thrown overboard as authorities approach, or files deleted as investigators close in all defeat a lawful seizure and undermine accountability. Article 131e reaches that interference directly.

The elements the government must prove

The statute is specific about timing and intent. The prosecution must prove:

  1. That one or more persons authorized to make searches and seizures were seizing, about to seize, or endeavoring to seize certain property.
  2. That the accused destroyed, removed, or otherwise disposed of that property.
  3. That the accused did so with the intent to prevent the seizure of the property.
  4. That, at the time, the accused knew that the persons were seizing, about to seize, or endeavoring to seize the property.

Each piece carries weight. The seizure must be authorized. The accused must have taken one of the covered actions against the property. The accused must have acted with the intent to prevent the seizure. And the accused must have known a seizure was underway or imminent.

The seizure must be authorized

A defining feature of Article 131e is that the seizure must be one that authorized persons were entitled to make. The article protects authorized seizures, not every effort to take property. If the persons attempting the seizure lacked authority, an essential element is absent. This is why the lawfulness of the underlying search or seizure authority can become a central issue. The government must establish that the seizure was being carried out, or was about to be carried out, by persons authorized to do so.

The timing and knowledge requirements

Because the offense criminalizes action taken to prevent an authorized seizure, the destruction, removal, or disposal must occur while the property is still subject to seizure, that is, while authorized personnel are seizing, about to seize, or endeavoring to seize it. The accused must also know this is happening. A person who disposes of property with no awareness that a seizure is underway or imminent lacks the knowledge element. The combination of contemporaneous timing, specific intent to prevent the seizure, and knowledge of the seizure effort is what defines the crime.

Maximum punishment

Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, the maximum punishment for prevention of authorized seizure of property is a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for up to 5 years. This relatively severe ceiling reflects the offense’s role in protecting the integrity of investigations and lawful authority. For offenses committed on or after 27 December 2023, the revised sentencing procedures of the Military Justice Act apply.

Common defenses

Defenses tend to track the elements:

  • No authorized seizure: the persons attempting the seizure lacked authority, so a protected seizure never existed.
  • No intent to prevent seizure: the accused did not act for the purpose of defeating the seizure.
  • Lack of knowledge: the accused did not know a seizure was underway, about to occur, or being attempted.
  • Accident: the property was lost or destroyed without deliberate action.
  • Lawful disposal: the property was disposed of under proper authority for a legitimate reason.

How Article 131e differs from related offenses

The closest neighbor is obstructing justice under Article 131b (10 U.S.C. 931b), which addresses broader interference with the administration of justice, such as influencing witnesses or impeding proceedings. Article 131e is narrower and property-focused: it targets the act of destroying, removing, or disposing of specific property to defeat an authorized seizure. Both can arise from the same incident.

The offense is also distinct from the underlying crime that the seized property might prove. Destroying drugs to prevent their seizure, for example, is separate from the wrongful possession of those drugs, and the two can be charged together.

Frequently asked questions

Does the property have to belong to the government?
No. The article reaches any property subject to an authorized seizure, including private property such as personal devices or contraband. What matters is that the seizure was authorized, not who owned the property.

Can digital files count as property under this article?
Yes. Deleting or corrupting electronic records to defeat an authorized seizure can fall within the article. Intentional destruction of digital evidence is treated comparably to destruction of physical items.

Does the accused need to know a seizure was happening?
Yes. Knowledge that authorized persons were seizing, about to seize, or endeavoring to seize the property is an element. Without that knowledge, the offense is not established.

Is accidental destruction punishable?
No. The article requires intent to prevent the seizure. Accidental loss or destruction does not satisfy the intent element.

How does this differ from obstruction of justice?
Obstruction under Article 131b covers wider interference with the justice process. Article 131e is specific to destroying, removing, or disposing of property to prevent its authorized seizure. The same conduct may support both charges.

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. 931e, Article 131e, Prevention of authorized seizure of property: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/931e
  • 10 U.S.C. 931b, Article 131b, Obstructing justice: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/931b
  • 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 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......
  2. 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......
  3. 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......
  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 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......
  6. 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......
  7. 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......
  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 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......
  10. 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......
  11. 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......
  12. 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......
  13. UCMJ Article 134: Bigamy Marriage carries legal and financial consequences in the military, from dependent enrollment to housing allowances, so a service member who marries a second person while a prior marriage remains legally......
  14. 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......
  15. UCMJ Article 90: Willfully Disobeying a Superior Commissioned Officer A lawful order from a superior commissioned officer carries the force of law, and refusing to obey it is one of the most direct challenges to military authority. Article 90......