Technical corrections only. The two versions of H.R. 2853 are substantively identical, with differences limited to legislative status updates and associated administrative text (Engrossed in House vs. Referred in Senate). No substantive policy changes were made between v3 and v4.
Combating Organized Retail Crime Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Joyce, David P. [R-OH-14]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 13, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to bolster federal law enforcement's ability to combat large-scale, cross-jurisdictional retail and cargo theft by expanding prosecutorial tools and creating a dedicated coordination hub.
What it actually does
This bill expands federal jurisdiction over organized retail and supply chain crime by amending Titles 18 and 19 of the U.S. Code. It lowers the threshold for federal prosecution of stolen goods offenses by allowing aggregation of thefts over a 12-month period and establishes a new Organized Retail and Supply Chain Crime Coordination Center within the Department of Homeland Security to enhance inter-agency and public-private collaboration against these crimes.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that organized retail crime and cargo theft are escalating, causing significant financial losses, increasing violence, and impacting national security by funding other criminal activities. They contend that current State and local resources are insufficient to address the cross-jurisdictional nature of these crimes, necessitating expanded federal tools and a centralized coordination effort to protect consumers, businesses, and the supply chain.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that expanding federal jurisdiction into areas traditionally handled by state and local law enforcement could lead to over-federalization of crime, potentially diverting federal resources from other critical areas or creating redundancy. Concerns could also be raised about the potential for increased penalties for offenses that might otherwise be considered lower-level crimes at the state level, and the cost and effectiveness of establishing a new federal center.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 3(3) and 3(4) of the Act, amending 18 U.S.C. 2314 and 2315.
Aggregation of Stolen Goods Value for Federal Prosecution
This provision amends federal law to allow for the aggregation of stolen goods' value over a 12-month period. If the aggregate value reaches $5,000 or more, it triggers federal jurisdiction for transportation or sale/receipt of stolen goods. Previously, federal jurisdiction typically required a single incident to meet a higher value threshold. It also clarifies that 'embezzled' goods and those obtained by 'false pretense, or other illegal means' are covered.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this change is crucial because organized retail crime often involves numerous smaller thefts that, individually, do not meet federal thresholds but collectively represent significant criminal enterprise. Aggregation allows federal authorities to target the systemic nature of these operations.
Critics contend
Critics might express concern that this expansion could lead to federal overreach into cases that could be handled by state authorities, potentially straining federal resources or leading to disproportionate penalties for individuals involved in lower-value, aggregated offenses.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for federal intervention in multi-state criminal enterprises against concerns about federalizing crimes traditionally handled at the state level and the potential for increased federal caseloads.
Section 3(1) and 3(2) of the Act, amending 18 U.S.C. 982(a)(5) and 1956(c)(7)(D).
Inclusion of Retail and Cargo Theft in Federal Forfeiture and Money Laundering Statutes
This provision adds several federal statutes related to interstate or foreign shipments by carrier (18 U.S.C. 659), transportation of stolen goods (18 U.S.C. 2314), and sale/receipt of stolen goods (18 U.S.C. 2315) as predicate offenses for federal asset forfeiture (section 982) and money laundering (section 1956). It also expands the definition of 'monetary instruments' for money laundering to include general-use prepaid cards, gift certificates, and store gift cards.
Section 4 of the Act, inserting new Section 305A into Title III of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015.
Creation of a Federal Coordination Center for Organized Retail and Supply Chain Crime
This provision mandates the establishment of an Organized Retail and Supply Chain Crime Coordination Center within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), led by Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). The Center will coordinate federal law enforcement activities, establish relationships with state/local agencies and private companies (retail, transportation), share information, track trends, and support training. It will be staffed by federal agents and analysts, with potential detailees from state/local agencies.
Section 4(c) of the Act, inserting new Section 305A(c) into Title III of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015.
Evaluation and Enhancement of Training and Technical Assistance Programs
This provision requires the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General to conduct an evaluation of existing federal programs that provide grants, training, and technical support to state, local, and tribal law enforcement for countering organized retail and supply chain crime. Following the evaluation, they must submit a report with recommendations and issue formal guidance to relevant agencies for modifying or expanding such assistance.
The bill expands the definition of 'monetary instruments' under federal money laundering statutes to include 'general-use prepaid cards, gift certificates, and store gift cards.'
Section 3(2)(A) of the Act, amending 18 U.S.C. 1956(c)(5).
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for updating definitions within existing statutes to reflect evolving criminal methods. It's a technical amendment rather than a standalone policy statement.
Case for: Proponents argue that organized retail crime increasingly relies on prepaid cards and gift cards to launder money and transfer value from stolen goods. Including these instruments in the definition of 'monetary instruments' closes a loophole, allowing law enforcement to more effectively target the financial infrastructure of these criminal organizations.
Case against: Critics might argue that such broad definitions could inadvertently capture legitimate transactions or individuals, or that the focus should remain on large-scale financial institutions rather than individual gift card use.
Estimated impact: This change significantly broadens the scope of federal money laundering investigations to encompass modern methods of value transfer commonly used in retail crime, potentially impacting millions of dollars in illicit proceeds.
The authority of the Organized Retail and Supply Chain Crime Coordination Center will terminate 7 years after its establishment.
Section 4(b)(6) of the Act, inserting new Section 305A(b)(6) into Title III of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015.
Why it matters:Sunset clauses are often included in legislation creating new agencies or programs to ensure periodic review and prevent indefinite expansion of government. It's a standard legislative mechanism for accountability.
Case for: Proponents argue that a sunset clause ensures that the Center's effectiveness will be reviewed after a set period, allowing Congress to assess its performance and decide whether to reauthorize, modify, or terminate it based on real-world results and evolving needs.
Case against: Critics might argue that a 7-year sunset period could create uncertainty for the Center's long-term planning and operations, potentially hindering its ability to attract and retain talent or build sustained relationships if its future is always in question.
Estimated impact: This clause ensures that the Center is not a permanent fixture without re-evaluation, potentially leading to a more efficient and accountable operation during its initial years.