The element of intent is central to any larceny prosecution under the UCMJ. When the property at issue was scheduled to be discarded, or when the accused had reason to believe it was no longer wanted by its owner, the question of whether the taking constituted theft in the legal sense becomes genuinely contested. Government property that is being disposed of, left unattended, or treated as surplus exists in a gray area that military regulations and judicial decisions have addressed in inconsistent ways.
A defense based on the status of the property is not a simple claim that the accused thought it was free to take. It requires examining the actual disposal procedures applicable to the property, what information was available to the accused at the time of the taking, and whether the honest belief that the property was abandoned negated the criminal intent that larceny requires. Cases have turned on these facts, and the outcome depends heavily on what the evidence actually shows about what the accused knew and why.
How the UCMJ Defines Larceny and the Element of Intent
Larceny under Article 121 of the UCMJ requires proof that the accused wrongfully took, obtained, or withheld property from its owner, with intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. Both elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The taking alone is not sufficient if the accused held a genuine, reasonable belief that they were entitled to the property or that the property had been abandoned. Intent to permanently deprive is what separates larceny from wrongful appropriation, which carries a lesser punishment, and from no offense at all when the taking was made under a good-faith claim of right.
When the property at issue was scheduled for disposal, the critical question is what the accused actually knew and believed at the time of the taking. A service member who removes property from a disposal location, a dumpster, a discard pile, or an area designated for destruction, holding a genuine belief that the property was no longer wanted, presents a different factual picture than one who removes property from active inventory. The reasonableness of the belief is evaluated in light of what information was actually available, including any official disposal notices, unit policies, or communications about the property’s status.
What “Abandoned Property” Means in a Military Context
Property scheduled for disposal or destruction has not been legally abandoned in the sense that the owner’s rights over it have terminated. The government retains ownership of military property throughout the disposal process until ownership is formally transferred or the property is destroyed. A service member who takes property from a disposal pile, a dumpster, or a staging area for excess equipment is taking property that still belongs to the government, regardless of the property’s operational status or intended fate.
The legal distinction between property that is abandoned and property that is merely surplus or awaiting disposal is one that civilian intuitions often misapply. In civilian life, items placed at the curb for trash pickup are understood to be abandoned and free for others to take. In military property law, no such informal abandonment occurs. Accountability for government property continues until formal disposition is completed through official channels, and a service member who takes the property before that process concludes has interfered with government property.
How Informal Disposal Practices Create Legal Gray Areas
Military units often develop informal practices around excess or obsolete equipment that do not align with the formal property disposition system. Equipment that is non-mission-capable, parts removed during maintenance and not returned to supply, consumables in excess of unit needs, and items that supervisors have informally designated as trash often circulate within units through informal means. Service members who participate in these informal transfers may believe they are acting consistently with established unit culture and with the implicit authorization of their supervisors.
That belief, even if genuine and even if consistent with how things have actually worked in the unit, does not create a legal defense to a larceny charge if the property belonged to the government and no formal transfer authority existed. The informal practice defense can support a mitigation argument about intent and culpability, but it does not eliminate the essential element of wrongful taking unless the practice was so established and so clearly authorized by those with authority to authorize it that the service member genuinely believed the taking was approved.
Cases Where Property Status Was Central to the Defense
Military cases involving disputed property status have produced acquittals and dismissals where the defense could establish that the property had been formally or effectively released from government accountability at the time of the taking. Cases where excess equipment was listed as disposed of in official records before the service member took it, where a responsible officer had formally designated items as waste, or where the property had genuinely lost all value and use to the government have sometimes supported successful property status defenses.
The strength of this defense depends entirely on the documentation that exists at the time the taking occurred. A formal entry in a property accountability system showing the property as disposed of, a written authorization from a person with actual disposal authority, or official documentation of a final decision to destroy the property can each support the argument that the property was not government property at the time of the alleged taking. Informal statements from supervisors, assumptions about what was going to happen, or conclusions drawn from the property’s condition are generally not sufficient.
When Honest Mistake Negates Criminal Intent
Larceny under Article 121 requires proof that the accused wrongfully took the property with intent to permanently deprive the owner. A service member who genuinely and reasonably believed that the property had been officially discarded, or that they had permission to take it, lacks the mental state required for the offense. This honest mistake defense is distinct from the property status argument: it focuses on what the accused believed rather than what the property’s legal status actually was.
The honest mistake defense requires evidence of the basis for the belief: what the accused observed, what they were told, what the unit’s practice had been, and why those facts justified the belief that the taking was authorized. A belief that is genuine but unreasonable under the circumstances will not support the defense. But a belief that was both honest and reasonable given what the accused actually knew at the time, and that explains why they did not believe they were doing anything wrong, can create genuine doubt about whether the element of intent has been proven.
This content is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Military law is complex and fact-specific. If you are facing a UCMJ investigation, court-martial, administrative separation, or any other military legal matter, consult a qualified military defense attorney before taking any action.