What is cargo theft under Texas law?
Cargo theft is its own offense under Texas Penal Code § 31.18 — appropriating, or knowingly handling, a commercial shipment of freight moving in commerce, with intent to deprive the owner. It is graded as a felony by the value of the cargo, with no misdemeanor tier.
Cargo theft is its own offense in Texas, written into Penal Code § 31.18. It is not the same charge as ordinary theft. The statute targets a narrow, high-impact slice of property crime: taking, carrying off, or knowingly dealing in cargo — a commercial shipment of freight moving in commerce. The Legislature carved it out because freight theft drains an industry that runs much of the Texas economy, and a general theft charge did not match the scale of organized truck-and-trailer crime.
The statutory definition of "cargo" matters more than most clients expect. Section 31.18 borrows the meaning of "goods" from the Business & Commerce Code and reaches freight that is moving in commerce — which the statute treats as anywhere between the point of origin and the final destination, including a temporary stop for transshipment. In Daryl Joe v. State, 620 S.W.3d 834 (Tex. App.—Waco 2021), the court explained that goods become cargo moving in commerce once a bill of lading is issued and the shipment is staged for transit, even while it still sits on the manufacturer's yard in a sealed trailer. That single point — the moment ordinary inventory becomes "cargo" under the statute — often decides whether a case belongs under § 31.18 at all or under the general theft statute.
A second feature surprises people charged in these cases: the offense does not require the freight to go anywhere. The same Joe court held that asportation — physically carrying property away — is not an element of cargo theft, because cargo theft is built on the general theft statute, § 31.03, which has never required movement. The defendant in that case had backed his truck up and "hooked up" a loaded trailer but could not move it "even one inch." The court still found enough evidence of possession — defined by § 1.07(a)(39) as actual care, custody, control, or management — to support the conviction. For the defense, that means the fight is rarely about whether the load moved; it is about possession, knowledge, and value.
Section 31.18 also reaches more than the person who physically takes the load. The statute covers a person who knowingly receives, conceals, stores, barters, sells, or disposes of stolen cargo, or cargo represented to be stolen. So a warehouse operator, a buyer, or a driver brought in after the fact can be exposed to the same felony grade as the person who lifted the trailer. The Tenth Court of Appeals confirmed in the later Joe appeal that the broad "any person" language of § 31.18(b)(1) is not limited to truck drivers — it reaches anyone whose conduct fits the statute.
What are the penalties for cargo theft?
Cargo theft is graded by the value of the cargo and has no misdemeanor tier — the floor is a state jail felony and the ceiling is a first-degree felony (5 to 99 years or life) when the value reaches $100,000 or more. Because value sets the grade, valuation is where many cargo cases are won or lost.
Cargo theft is graded by the value of the cargo involved, and unlike general theft it has no misdemeanor tier — the floor is a felony. The table below states the structure of the § 31.18 value ladder conservatively from the statute; the exact dollar boundaries are set by the current text of the statute, so always confirm the live version for your specific facts.
| Value of cargo | Grade | Confinement | Max fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Less than $1,500 | State jail felony | 180 days – 2 years (state jail) | $10,000 |
| $1,500 to less than $10,000 | Third-degree felony | 2 – 10 years (TDCJ) | $10,000 |
| $10,000 to less than $100,000 | Second-degree felony | 2 – 20 years (TDCJ) | $10,000 |
| $100,000 or more | First-degree felony | 5 – 99 years or life (TDCJ) | $10,000 |
Because every line on that ladder is set by a dollar threshold, valuation is where many cargo cases are won or lost. Value under the theft chapter is fair market value at the time and place of the offense — not the manufacturer's list price, not the retail markup, and not the replacement cost the carrier reports to its insurer. Texas courts presume an owner's testimony about value is an estimate of fair market value, but that presumption can be tested on cross-examination, and the trier of fact's valuation only survives if the evidence actually supports the pleaded range. Pushing the proven value below the next threshold — from second-degree to third, or from first-degree down — can cut the exposure in half or more.
One more multiplier matters: aggregation. Under § 31.09, when amounts are obtained pursuant to one scheme or continuing course of conduct, the State may treat the conduct as a single offense and add the values together to set the grade. That is how a series of mid-sized loads becomes one first-degree felony. But aggregation is not automatic. In Kellar v. State, 108 S.W.3d 311 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003), the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the "one scheme or continuing course of conduct" condition is an element of the offense that the State must plead in the indictment and prove — the defendant may require it to be charged to the jury. If the State cannot prove a single scheme tying the loads together, the aggregated grade can fall apart and the case fragments into smaller, separately limited offenses.
How do prosecutors prove cargo theft?
To convict, the State must prove appropriation or knowing handling, that the property was cargo moving in commerce, possession or control, intent to deprive (or knowledge of stolen status), and value — each beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutors build these cases on GPS, yard cameras, bills of lading, and the recovered goods.
To convict, the State must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. Laid out as a checklist, that is what a cargo-theft prosecution has to establish:
- Appropriation or knowing handling
- The accused either unlawfully appropriated the cargo — took control without the owner's effective consent — or knowingly received, stored, concealed, sold, or disposed of cargo that was stolen or represented as stolen.
- The property was "cargo" moving in commerce
- The goods were a commercial shipment of freight located somewhere between origin and final destination. This is the element Joe turned on — a bill of lading and a sealed, staged trailer can satisfy it even before the truck leaves the yard.
- Possession or control
- Actual care, custody, control, or management under § 1.07(a)(39). The State may prove this by direct or circumstantial evidence, but the connection to the cargo must be more than fortuitous.
- Intent to deprive (or knowledge of stolen status)
- A culpable mental state under § 6.03 — intent to deprive the owner, or knowledge that the goods were stolen for receiving-type conduct. This is the element forensic and circumstantial defenses most often attack.
- Value (sets the grade)
- Fair market value at the time and place of the offense, falling within the range pleaded. For aggregated cases, the State must also prove the single scheme that justifies adding the loads together.
In practice, prosecutors build these cases on a familiar evidence stack: GPS and telematics from the tractor and trailer, yard-camera and gate footage, bill-of-lading and dispatch records, cell-site location data, license-plate-reader hits along the corridor, and the recovered goods themselves — often still bearing shipping labels, serial numbers, or carrier markings. Each of those evidentiary pillars is also a place the defense pushes back, because a label that proves the goods were stolen does not, by itself, prove the defendant knew it.
What defenses work against a cargo theft charge?
There is no single cargo-theft defense. The right strategy depends on whether the client is the alleged taker, a downstream buyer or warehouseman, or a driver in a dispute over authority. Valuation challenges, no-knowledge defenses, breaking aggregation, and suppression do most of the work.
There is no single "cargo theft defense." The right strategy depends on whether the client is the alleged taker, a downstream buyer or warehouseman, or a driver caught in a dispute over authority to move a load. These are the theories our firm develops most often, each tied to a statutory or evidentiary hook:
- Attacking the value — and the grade with it. Because value is an element that sets the felony level, a forensic valuation challenge can drop the charge a full grade or more. We test the owner's fair-market-value estimate, separate retail markup and consequential losses from actual market value, and account for damaged or recovered goods.
- No knowledge that goods were stolen. For receiving, storing, or selling conduct under § 31.18(b)(1), the State must prove the client knew — not merely should have suspected. Legitimate paperwork, a plausible purchase price, and the absence of obviously altered markings all cut against the knowledge element.
- It was not "cargo moving in commerce." If the goods had already reached their final destination, had been removed from the stream of commerce, or were never a commercial freight shipment, § 31.18 may not apply at all — pushing the case toward general theft with its different grade ladder.
- Breaking aggregation under § 31.09. Following Kellar, if the State cannot plead and prove a single scheme or continuing course of conduct, separately charged loads cannot be stacked. Severing the counts can collapse a first-degree exposure into several smaller offenses.
- Mistaken identity and insufficient possession. Yard footage and plate readers place a truck, not a person. Where the State's link to the accused is circumstantial, we press whether the connection to the cargo was more than fortuitous, as the possession cases require.
- Authority, consent, and contract disputes. Drivers and brokers sometimes move freight under a genuine but contested claim of right — a double-brokered load, a lien, or a billing dispute. Effective consent and a bona-fide claim of right can negate the intent to deprive.
- Suppression of unlawfully obtained evidence. Warrantless GPS tracking, defective search warrants for telematics or phone data, and chain-of-custody gaps in the recovered goods are all litigated through pretrial motions under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Consider a common DFW fact pattern, offered only as a hypothetical: a driver agrees to haul a trailer he is told was already loaded and released, hauls it to a warehouse, and is paid in cash. He is later charged with cargo theft when the load turns up stolen. The State leans on the warehouse footage and the cash payment; the defense leans on the dispatch messages, the absence of altered labels, and the price paid, all going to whether he knew. The point of the example is not a promised result — it is that the knowledge element, not the act of hauling, is where the case is actually contested.
When does cargo theft become a federal case?
Freight theft can be charged by the State, the federal government, or both. The federal hook is 18 U.S.C. § 659 — theft from interstate or foreign shipments. Federal prosecutors take the larger, organized, or multi-state cases, and the sentencing math is entirely different.
Freight theft can be charged by the State, by the federal government, or both. The federal hook is 18 U.S.C. § 659, which criminalizes theft from interstate or foreign shipments — goods moving by truck, rail, air, or vessel as part of interstate commerce. Federal prosecutors in the Northern and Eastern Districts of Texas tend to take the larger, organized, or multi-state cases: theft rings that hit loads across several states, fictitious-pickup and identity-based "strategic" cargo theft, and schemes that move recovered goods through interstate fences.
The forum matters because the consequences diverge sharply. A federal § 659 case is sentenced under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, where the driving variable is loss amount under the fraud-and-theft loss table, layered with role and sophisticated-means adjustments. A Texas § 31.18 case is sentenced inside the value-tiered felony grade and the Penal Code's punishment ranges, with state probation and parole rules. Whether a client faces the Frank Crowley Courts Building or the federal courthouse in Dallas changes the bond posture, the discovery rules, the plea landscape, and the realistic exposure. Reggie London is admitted in the Northern and Eastern Districts of Texas and the Fifth Circuit, so the firm evaluates both tracks from the outset rather than discovering the federal exposure late.
Where are DFW cargo theft cases heard?
Cargo theft is a felony, so a state case is heard in the felony district courts of the county where the offense is alleged. From our single Frisco office we defend cases across Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant County, appearing in each county's courthouse.
Cargo theft is a felony, so a state case is heard in the felony district courts of the county where the offense is alleged to have occurred. Because the firm's single office is in Frisco, we defend cases across the four core DFW counties from there — appearing in each county's courthouse rather than maintaining branch offices. Here is the practical court map clients ask about:
- Collin County — felony cases are filed at the Collin County Courthouse in McKinney and run through the county's district courts. Frisco, Plano, and McKinney warehouse and distribution corridors feed cargo cases into this county.
- Dallas County — felony matters are handled at the Frank Crowley Courts Building in Dallas. With the region's densest concentration of freight terminals, rail yards, and the inland-port logistics hubs in southern Dallas County, this is a frequent venue for cargo prosecutions.
- Denton County — cases are heard at the Denton County Courts Building in Denton, covering the I-35 distribution corridor through Denton, Lewisville, and the northern Metroplex.
- Tarrant County — felony cases run through the Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center in Fort Worth, serving the western Metroplex and the Alliance logistics and intermodal area.
County practice varies in pace and in how the district attorney's office screens and resolves felony theft, but the legal spine is the same statewide: § 31.18, the value ladder, and the aggregation rules. We do not promise a particular county outcome — we know each courthouse's process well enough to plan the defense around it.
What is the process after a cargo theft arrest?
A felony cargo case follows the standard Texas track — arrest and magistration, bond, pre-indictment DA screening, grand jury and indictment, pretrial litigation, and resolution — with a freight-specific wrinkle: physical evidence degrades or is released quickly, so early counsel matters.
A felony cargo case follows the standard Texas criminal track, with a few freight-specific wrinkles. Knowing the sequence helps you see where the leverage points are:
- Arrest and magistration. Within 48 hours you are taken before a magistrate, read your rights, and given a bond. In high-value cargo cases the State may argue for a higher bond because of the felony grade and any alleged organization.
- Bond and conditions. Counsel can seek a reduction and shape conditions. Where the case alleges an organized ring or out-of-area ties, bond argument and a quick lawyer presence matter most.
- DA screening and investigation. Before indictment, the district attorney reviews the carrier's loss-prevention file, telematics, and recovered-goods evidence. This pre-indictment window is the highest-leverage moment to present mitigating facts — a valuation problem, a knowledge defense, a broken aggregation theory.
- Grand jury and indictment. A felony proceeds by indictment. The grade alleged — and any § 31.09 aggregation — is locked in here, which is exactly what Kellar requires the State to plead.
- Pretrial litigation. Discovery under the Michael Morton Act, suppression motions targeting GPS and warrant defects, and expert work on valuation and chain of custody.
- Resolution. Dismissal, reduction to a lower grade or to general theft, a negotiated plea, deferred adjudication where eligible, or trial.
The freight-specific wrinkle is timing: physical evidence in cargo cases — trailers, seals, recovered goods, perishable loads — gets released, returned, or degrades quickly. Getting defense counsel involved early can mean the difference between independently examining that evidence and arguing about it secondhand months later.
Collateral consequences and record relief
Because every grade is a felony, a cargo-theft conviction can mean loss of firearm rights, immigration consequences for non-citizens, and the end of a trucking or logistics career through CDL, bonding, and TWIC fallout. Record relief is limited and usually decided before a conviction is entered.
A cargo-theft conviction reaches well past the courtroom. Because every grade is a felony, a conviction can mean the loss of firearm rights under Texas Penal Code § 46.04 and federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). A theft conviction is a crime of moral turpitude with serious immigration consequences for non-citizens, and an aggravated-felony theft analysis can apply at higher loss amounts. For anyone who works in trucking or logistics, the practical hit is direct: a commercial driver's license and the ability to be bonded, hired, or hold a TWIC credential can all be jeopardized, ending a freight career on the same facts that produced the charge.
Record relief is limited and is usually decided before a conviction is entered, not after. A full expunction under Chapter 55 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is generally available only after a dismissal, acquittal, or no-bill — not after a conviction. An order of nondisclosure can seal some records after a successfully completed deferred adjudication, but eligibility is restricted and a number of theft-related offenses are limited. That is one more reason the most important record decisions in a cargo case are made early — aiming the defense at a dismissal, a reduction, or a deferred disposition that preserves a path to sealing.
