Getting Organized Retail and Cargo Theft Right

Introduction

Organized retail and cargo theft are public safety and consumer protection problems driven by a relatively small number of sophisticated criminal networks—not a general explosion in everyday shoplifting. These criminals exploit gaps in law, data, and enforcement coordination to move large volumes of goods and money across jurisdictions, often to finance other serious crimes.

Recent freight-industry analyses show that cargo theft accounts for approximately 58 percent of total retail-theft losses. Its dependence on interstate highways and multistate distribution networks underscores why federal attention is necessary.

Federal agencies define “organized retail theft” as large-scale theft and fraud carried out by criminal enterprises that steal in bulk from multiple stores and then resell or launder the proceeds through fencing operations, online marketplaces, and cross-border channels. But research reminds us that the story is more complicated than a simple “crime wave” narrative. While shoplifting has risen in some places and sectors, national trends and data quality are uneven, and not every theft problem relates to organized crime.

What the data say about retail theft and organization

A 2023 analysis of police incident data does not show a uniform surge of shoplifting nationwide, even though some large jurisdictions have experienced notable increases. Recent reports highlight significant variation across major cities: Some saw double-digit increases in reported shoplifting after 2019, while others saw declines or a return to pre-pandemic levels.

Similarly, research notes that many commonly repeated statistics about “record levels” of shoplifting rely on incomplete data or interpret general “shrink” numbers as if they were all theft. However, shrink typically results from a mix of factors including external shoplifting, employee theft, administrative and inventory errors, vendor fraud, and product damage rather than theft alone.

A special report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), “Reported Flash Mob Shoplifting Incidents, 2020-2024,” helps put some of the most visible events in context. Out of nearly 4 million shoplifting incidents reported within that timeframe, only about 0.1 percent (3,321) involved six or more offenders. Although these “flash mob” incidents represent a tiny fraction of overall shoplifting, they do involve millions of dollars in stolen goods.

At the same time, industry surveys show that many retailers do perceive a meaningful rise in theft pressure. Participating chains report an average 93 percent increase in the number of shoplifting incidents and a 90 percent increase in financial losses in 2023 compared to 2019, along with more repeat offenses, “shelf sweep” thefts, and group-based thefts.

Taken together, the available data do not support claims of a universal, runaway shoplifting epidemic; however, they do show that some cities, categories, and chains are dealing with serious theft and violence pressures—including a subset that appears tied to organized groups.

How organized retail crime actually operates

Theft tied to organized groups looks very different from ordinary shoplifting. The United States Congressional Research Service (CRS) and the FBI define “organized retail crime” (ORC) as coordinated theft and fraud designed to obtain retail goods, cash, or cargo at scale; convert them into financial gain; and (more often than not) route the proceeds into broader criminal enterprises.

These groups typically:

• Steal large quantities of branded, high-demand merchandise through shelf sweeps, diversion schemes, return fraud, and burglary.
• Use boosters, cleaners, and fences to move stolen goods into online marketplaces, pop-up stores or overseas distribution networks.
• Exploit anonymous or lightly vetted third-party seller accounts on e-commerce platforms.
• Rely on payment card fraud, identity theft, and shell companies to obscure money flows.

The National Retail Federation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce describe these groups as “polycriminal”—that is, the same networks engaged in organized retail theft and cargo theft also show up in drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, human smuggling, and international money-laundering cases. Homeland Security Investigations’ Operation Boiling Point reinforces this by explicitly targeting groups that profit from ORC, cargo theft, and related offenses while leveraging freight systems, financial institutions, and online marketplaces to scale their activity.

Cargo theft’s scale and impact

Cargo theft—targeting loads moving along highways, rail corridors, ports and distribution hubs—has become one of the most consequential aspects of retail-adjacent crime. CargoNet data show a 27 percent increase in reported cargo theft incidents in 2024 compared to the previous year, with average losses exceeding $200,000 per theft.

These thefts increasingly rely on fraud rather than simply breaking into trailers. Organized theft groups:

• Use fictitious pickups, forged bills of lading, and stolen carrier identities to divert entire truckloads.
• Target high-value or sensitive loads—such as electronics, pharmaceuticals, infant formula, and food—at distribution centers, truck stops, and rail yards.
• Channel stolen cargo through the same fencing, freight-forwarding, and money-laundering networks that support ORC.

Federal enforcement is evolving accordingly. Operation Boiling Point treats ORC and cargo theft as supply-chain crimes requiring coordinated financial investigations, public-private partnerships, and better information-sharing—not just more patrol coverage. Industry data emphasize that because cargo theft disproportionately relies on interstate freight corridors—where stolen loads often move across multiple states within hours—a national, federally coordinated response is better than isolated state-by-state efforts.

Public-safety risks: Beyond “inventory loss”

Both in stores and across the supply chain, organized theft creates public safety risks that go well beyond shrink or balance sheets. While these incidents occur rather infrequently, they are more serious and more likely than standard shoplifting to involve additional offenses, weapons, and injuries. Roughly 1.3 percent of flash-mob shoplifting incidents between 2020 and 2024 involved one or more injuries, compared to 0.3 percent of non-flash-mob shoplifting incidents.

Retail sector surveys echo those concerns:  

• 73 percent of retailers say shoplifters exhibit more violence and aggression today than in 2024; 91 percent say the same compared to 2019.
• 84 percent say violence during crimes has become more of a concern in the past year.
• Between 2022 and 2023, retailers saw a 42 percent increase in shoplifting incidents involving threats or acts of violence and a 39 percent increase in those involving the threat, display, or use of a weapon.

Business groups report persistent worries about assaults, threats, and harassment tied to theft incidents and note that rising violence makes it harder to hire, retain, and train employees for frontline roles. For smaller businesses, repeated victimization can mean physical damage, chronic safety concerns, staff turnover, and customers avoiding certain locations. For drivers and warehouse workers, cargo-theft attempts can involve armed robberies, tampering with vehicles, or confrontations at yards and loading docks.

Consequences for consumers and communities

Organized retail and cargo theft show up as higher prices, fewer options, and degraded shopping experiences for consumers. Reports estimate that tens of billions of dollars in retail theft ripple outward in the form of higher prices, lost jobs, and reduced state and local tax revenue. Families with lower and moderate incomes bear a disproportionate share of these costs because they spend a larger percentage of their income on retail goods. Consumer-facing analyses reinforce this picture: Even relatively small monthly losses for a typical small retailer accumulate into billions in higher prices and lost sales taxes nationwide.

In some cases, repeated theft and violence prompt retailers to close locations, reduce hours, or scale back services—decisions that hit communities with thin margins hardest. Estimates show that a single closed grocery store can mean the loss of more than 100 jobs as well as millions in annual state and local sales tax revenue. The closure of smaller drug, apparel, and convenience stores quickly multiply these losses.

Even where stores remain open, 76 percent of retailers feel rising violence has forced them to implement measures that negatively impact the customer experience. Many have resorted to utilizing more locked cases, restricting access to common products, employing more visible security, and implementing stricter return policies—measures that protect stock and staff but make routine shopping more burdensome.

Local business coalitions, chambers of commerce, and industry groups have begun forming ORC task forces and information-sharing networks to respond collectively. Analyses on retail crime and cargo theft and ways to combat retail crime argue that businesses, law enforcement, and policymakers must jointly address both in-store and supply-chain theft to prevent vulnerable communities from losing access to essential goods.

Why a coordinated, data-driven response is necessary

• Organized theft targeting retail and cargo is a cross-jurisdictional, financially driven problem that cannot be addressed one incident at a time or by treating all shoplifting as the same phenomenon.
• Theft networks capitalize on inconsistencies between state laws, gaps in reporting and data systems, and the lack of a unified national picture while moving goods and money through interstate transportation and digital platforms.
• Existing ORC data are fragmented, often relying on “shrink” numbers that combine theft, errors, and other losses. This is why policymakers should prioritize better definitions and data collection before leaning too heavily on headline estimates.

Federal proposals, such as the bipartisan Combating Organized Retail Crime Act (H.R.2853/S.1404), and a growing number of state-level initiatives aim to address these gaps by:

• Creating or strengthening multi-agency coordination centers focused on organized retail and supply-chain crimes.
• Enhancing information sharing between retailers, financial institutions, freight carriers, and law enforcement.
• Targeting money flows via anti-money-laundering tools and better oversight of online marketplaces rather than relying solely on in-store arrests.

Recent multi-state crackdowns like the national operation that led to hundreds of arrests across 28 states show what is possible when task forces pool data and focus on high-impact networks rather than scattered individual cases. But those efforts also underscore the need for guardrails. Lawmakers must distinguish between organized theft and low-level offenses to avoid making every repeat shoplifter an “organized criminal” for charging purposes and to monitor whether new powers actually reduce violence and high-impact theft.

A more measured, safety-focused strategy would:

• Focus resources on the worst harm. Prioritize multi-jurisdictional investigations, financial enforcement, and cargo-theft cases where losses, violence, and cross-border risks are highest.
• Improve data and definitions. Standardize how ORC is defined in statute and in data systems, and treat “shrink” as a starting point rather than a definitive measure of crime.
• Strengthen public-private partnerships. Support efforts like Operation Boiling Point, industry ORC alliances, and local task forces that bring freight, finance, retail, and law enforcement together.

Conclusion

Organized retail and cargo theft are real, serious problems that affect workers, consumers, and communities. But if policymakers treat every shoplifting incident as organized crime, we will misallocate scarce resources, risk unnecessary confrontations, and miss the relatively small share of theft that actually drives the greatest harm. A coordinated, data-driven response grounded in accurate measurement, targeted enforcement, and clear safeguards is the best way to protect both public safety and the integrity of the retail and supply-chain economy.