What is Organized Retail Theft?
Minnesota’s Crackdown on Organized Retail Theft
A recent law enforcement operation in the Twin Cities led to the arrest of 29 individuals as part of a broader crackdown on organized retail crime. The arrests highlight the growing concern over retail theft rings that target businesses across Minnesota. The operation, conducted by Roseville police and supported by major retailers like Target and Walmart, resulted in the recovery of more than $5,100 in stolen merchandise. Seven suspects now face felony or gross misdemeanor charges.
One high-profile arrest was that of 21-year-old Kenneth Owen Machen, who has been charged with felony theft for allegedly stealing over $25,000 worth of merchandise from multiple stores, including Best Buy and HomeGoods. Authorities allege that Machen and his girlfriend stole more than $50,000 worth of items over eight months.
Minnesota Statute 609.522: Targeting Organized Retail Crime
The arrests come in the wake of Minnesota’s new organized retail theft statute (Minn. Stat. 609.522), which was enacted in 2023. Under this law, individuals involved in organized retail theft enterprises—defined as groups of two or more people engaged in systematic shoplifting—can face severe penalties. A person convicted under this statute could receive up to 15 years in prison and fines of up to $35,000, depending on the value of the stolen merchandise.
To be guilty of organized retail theft under Minnesota Statute 609.522, Subdivision 2, a person must:
Be involved with a retail theft enterprise – meaning they are employed by or associated with a group engaged in coordinated shoplifting.
Have a prior pattern of retail theft – meaning they have committed at least two retail theft offenses in the past six months.
Commit or direct a theft act – they either personally steal or instruct another member of the group to steal retail merchandise.
Engage in resale or fraud – after stealing, they must either:
Resell or intend to resell the stolen goods,
Advertise or display stolen merchandise for sale, or
Return stolen merchandise to a retailer in exchange for something of value.
These elements distinguish organized retail theft from ordinary shoplifting by emphasizing repeated, coordinated criminal activity and financial gain through resale or fraud.
Other key provisions of the law include:
Pattern of Retail Theft: Prosecutors can charge individuals who have committed multiple retail theft offenses within a six-month period.
Enhanced Penalties: Sentences are more severe if stolen goods exceed certain monetary thresholds or if the crime poses a risk of bodily harm.
Aggregation of Offenses: Prosecutors can combine multiple thefts from different locations within a six-month period to increase the severity of charges.
Is Organized Retail Theft as Big of a Problem as Stores Claim?
The claim that organized retail theft is surging nationwide and driving store closures is not well-supported by available data. While violent crime has declined since 2020, trends in retail theft remain difficult to assess due to inconsistent reporting methods. National FBI data does not indicate a broad increase in larceny, including shoplifting, and city-level studies show declines in many areas. Moreover, industry claims about the scale of organized retail theft often rely on ambiguous or flawed data, with estimates frequently conflating retail "shrink"—which includes theft, inventory errors, and damage—with actual theft incidents.
Retail industry organizations have contributed to misinformation, with widely cited statistics later being retracted or revealed as misrepresentations. For example, the National Retail Federation's claim that nearly half of all shrink resulted from organized retail theft was later discredited, as it was based on a misinterpretation of its own past data. Additionally, reports attributing billions in losses to organized retail crime often stem from small, non-representative surveys. Despite some retailers blaming theft for store closures, further analysis suggests other factors, such as declining foot traffic in urban centers, may play a more significant role. Given these uncertainties, sweeping policy changes, such as lowering felony theft thresholds or imposing harsher penalties, may be premature without a more accurate understanding of the issue.
Defending Against an Organized Retail Theft Charge
As with many new laws, the scope of 609.522 will be tested and stretched by prosecutors seeking to gain leverage over criminal defendants. In particular, the definition of “Retail Theft Enterprise” creates an opportunity for prosecutorial overreach.
“Retail Theft Enterprise”
The definition of a retail theft enterprise under Minnesota Statute 609.522 is notably broad, encompassing any group of two or more individuals who share a goal of unlawfully taking retail merchandise. Importantly, the law does not require that the same individuals participate in every theft or that the group maintains a consistent membership over time. This expansive scope raises concerns about potential overreach, as loosely connected individuals—such as casual acquaintances who commit separate thefts but are later linked by law enforcement—could be swept under the statute’s harsher penalties. Additionally, those who unknowingly assist or associate with repeat offenders may find themselves implicated in a larger criminal enterprise. While the law aims to dismantle sophisticated theft rings, its vague definitions could lead to aggressive prosecutions that capture lower-level offenders or individuals engaged in minor, uncoordinated thefts rather than true organized crime.
If you, or someone you know, is being investigated for or charged with organized retail theft, contact our experienced criminal defense attorneys for a free consultation.
