Bill Overview
Title: Combating Organized Retail Crime Act of 2022
Description: This bill expands federal enforcement of criminal offenses related to organized retail crime. Organized retail crime typically refers to large-scale retail theft and fraud by organized groups of professional shoplifters, or boosters, who make money by stealing merchandise and reselling it for a fraction of the retail cost. First, with respect to criminal offenses involving the transportation of stolen property across state lines and the sale or receipt of stolen goods, the bill broadens the scope of conduct that qualifies as offenses. Additionally, the bill makes the offenses predicate offenses (i.e., underlying offenses) for prosecutions under the federal money laundering statute and authorizes the criminal forfeiture of any property representing or traceable to the gross proceeds obtained as a result of an offense or a conspiracy to commit an offense. Second, with respect to criminal offenses involving theft from an interstate or foreign shipment, the bill makes an offense an underlying offense for prosecution under the federal money laundering statute and authorizes the criminal forfeiture of any property representing or traceable to the gross proceeds obtained as a result of an offense or a conspiracy to commit an offense. Finally, the bill establishes a center—the Organized Retail Crime Coordination Center—within the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate the federal law enforcement activities related to organized retail crime.
Sponsors: Rep. Buck, Ken [R-CO-4]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by organized retail crime legislation
Estimated Size: 8000000
- Organized retail crime affects retailers who lose merchandise and profits due to theft.
- Consumers can be indirectly impacted through higher prices as retailers seek to recoup losses from theft, which affects affordability.
- Law enforcement agencies will need to allocate resources to new duties under this bill, affecting priorities and personnel deployment.
- Individuals involved in organized retail crime activities will face increased legal risk and potential prosecution, affecting their wellbeing.
- Judicial and correctional systems may see increased caseloads due to more prosecutions under expanded definitions of offenses.
- Retail workers may experience a safer work environment if organized crime is reduced, impacting job satisfaction and security.
Reasoning
- The policy is designed to target organized retail crime, which primarily affects retailers, consumers, and law enforcement.
- National chains or businesses operating across states will find it most relevant due to its interstate nature.
- Budget limitations mean not all aspects of organized retail crime can be addressed, and some smaller incidents may still fall through the cracks.
- Some individuals are directly involved in organized retail crime, while others are indirectly affected, such as retail workers and consumers facing rising prices.
- There is a diverse spectrum of individuals whose lives could be impacted—ranging from criminals, retail employees, average consumers, to law enforcement personnel.
Simulated Interviews
Retail Manager (Chicago, IL)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think anything that reduces theft is good for us in retail.
- It'll make my job a lot less stressful if we see a decrease in shoplifting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Law Enforcement Officer (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy means we will need more resources, but it's a much-needed step.
- It'll keep us busy, probably too busy at the start until we get into the flow of it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Freelance Thief (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill makes things too risky for us.
- I'll probably have to shift my 'work' strategy or quit altogether.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 3 |
Consumer Advocate (Seattle, WA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this reduces prices even a little, it's beneficial for consumers.
- I'm monitoring to see if this leads to substantial price reductions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Small Business Owner (Austin, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems aimed at bigger chains, but any reduction in theft might help even my store.
- However, it doesn’t directly change how I run my shop day-to-day.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retail Worker (Dallas, TX)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A safer work environment would definitely boost my morale.
- It's tough working where theft happens often—it feels unsettling.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Online Reseller (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I avoid any connection with stolen goods anyway, but this will tighten things up.
- Online platforms should get more cautious, which is good.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retired (Detroit, MI)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems useful if it can make my shopping affordable.
- I'm skeptical, but hopeful it changes the current theft situation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Legal Advisor (Miami, FL)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We're definitely seeing more cases related to organized crime.
- It adds to my work hours, but it's a professional challenge I'm up for.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
College Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 21 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's interesting to see policies lining up with my studies.
- Could improve safety at my part-time job.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $25500000 (Low: $20500000, High: $30500000)
Year 3: $26000000 (Low: $21000000, High: $31000000)
Year 5: $27000000 (Low: $22000000, High: $32000000)
Year 10: $29000000 (Low: $24000000, High: $34000000)
Year 100: $29000000 (Low: $24000000, High: $34000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy's long-term effectiveness in reducing organized retail crime will heavily influence the associated economic benefits and cost savings.
- Potential judicial system impacts due to increased prosecutions need to be considered, including overburdened courts and correctional facilities.
- Coordination between federal and state agencies will be critical to implement the policy successfully.
- There might be resistance or unintended consequences affecting small retailers or sectors not primarily impacted by organized retail crime.