New Ohio law aims to crack down on organized retail theft
House Bill 336, named the Fight Organized Retail Crime and Empower Law Enforcement (FORCE) Act, created a felony offense of organized retail theft in Ohio. The crime involves people coordinating the theft of merchandise with the intent of reselling it or otherwise using it for financial gain. Watch a previous report on organized crime rings' effects on central Ohio in the video player above.
Ohio Supreme Court reinstates law banning trans healthcare for minors
'Organized retail crime represents an economic challenge for Ohio, amounting to billions of dollars in losses,' said Rep. Haraz Ghanbari (R-75th District), the bill's sponsor, at an introductory hearing last year. 'The repercussions of such crime extend beyond financial losses. Increased criminal activity disrupts businesses and threatens the safety of consumers and employees alike.'
The Ohio Council of Retail Merchants estimates that organized retail theft costs businesses in the state $2 billion to $3 billion annually. To offset the losses, some retailers may raise prices.
The statute, which went into effect on April 9, classifies organized retail theft of a value less than $750,000 as a third-degree felony, a value between $750,000 and $1.5 million as a second-degree felony, and a value more than $1.5 million as a first-degree felony. When determining the retail value, the cost of all property stolen from one or more establishments by a person or group within any 12-month period may be considered.
'These criminals rely on safety in numbers, but it's a false sense of security,' said Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, whose office worked on the legislation. 'We now can charge them as a group, making it easier to convict and imprison thieves who target retailers as part of a crime ring.'
The law established a task force under Yost's office to investigate retail theft across the state, assisting local law enforcement and prosecutors. In Ohio, any person making retail sales subject to sales tax must obtain a vendor's license, which has a fee of $25. The law raised that fee to $50 to help fund the task force.
Ohio lawmakers seek to put an end to police quotas
Throughout the legislation's hearings last year, multiple retailers, including Walgreens, Target, JCPenney, Walmart and Meijer, testified in support of the bill.
'Walgreens has experienced a significant increase in product loss in Ohio and across the country over the last several years,' Walgreens major crimes investigations manager Bryan Lindsay said. 'Organized Retail Crime not only results in substantial financial losses for businesses, but also jeopardizes the safety of employees and customers.'
The statute also attempts to crack down on porch pirates by creating the offense of mail theft, which is generally a fifth-degree felony but can escalate to a first-degree felony depending on the value of the stolen mail.
It additionally targets repeat theft offenders, setting a minimum fourth-degree felony charge for thefts committed by residents who have a felony theft conviction within the previous three years.
Zachary Miller, with Ohio's Office of the Public Defender, was the only person to testify against the bill. He expressed concern about how the legislation may impact those who struggle with substance use and commit theft, but are not part of an organized crime ring.
New development denied at site of Pickaway County farmland
'As the provider of legal representation for indigent Ohioans accused of a crime, we believe HB 366 will disproportionately impose unduly harsh sentences on those accused of low-level theft, especially those struggling with substance use disorders,' Miller said in December testimony.
As of January, 28 states have established criminal laws focusing on organized retail crime or enhanced penalties for those who steal repeatedly for the purpose of reselling stolen goods, according to the National Retail Federation.
HB 336 was introduced in December 2023 and signed by Gov. Mike DeWine in January. It passed the House 83-6 and the Senate 30-0.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Trump Launches Attack on Nancy Pelosi: 'Disgusting Degenerate'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump has called former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a "disgusting degenerate" in a Truth Social post, accusing the longtime Democratic U.S. representative for California's husband of using insider information to profit from the stock market. The attack coincides with growing momentum for a congressional stock trading ban. Newsweek contacted Nancy Pelosi via telephone for comment on Sunday outside of usual working hours. Why It Matters The clash highlights the heightened scrutiny over elected officials and their families engaging in high-value stock trades. The proposed legislation, initially dubbed the PELOSI (Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments) Act before being rebranded the Halting Ownership and Non-Ethical Stock Transactions (HONEST) Act, is advancing with bipartisan support, but has drawn sharp criticism from Trump, who claims it targets him politically. Former House speaker and longtime Democratic Senator Nancy Pelosi, from California, speaks on Capitol Hill on May 21, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Former House speaker and longtime Democratic Senator Nancy Pelosi, from California, speaks on Capitol Hill on May 21, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Photo byfor FamiliesWhat To Know Supporters of the HONEST Act argue it is necessary to eliminate the appearance of conflicts of interest and restore public trust. Nancy Pelosi has previously said she strongly supports the bill and looks forward to voting for it, as reported by The Associated Press. "The American people deserve confidence that their elected leaders are serving the public interest, not their personal portfolios," she said. In his all-caps Truth Social post, Trump claimed Nancy Pelosi's husband, Paul Pelosi, "beat every hedge fund in 2024," attributing it to "INSIDE INFORMATION," and taunted Nancy Pelosi over her role in his impeachments. When Trump has previously accused Nancy Pelosi of insider trading, her office has consistently denied involvement, stating she does not personally own stocks and had no role in her husband's investment decisions. Nancy Pelosi has also dismissed Trump's accusations as "ridiculous" to CNN, and politically motivated, accusing him of projecting his own ethics problems onto others. As reported by Newsweek, a stock owned by Nancy Pelosi's husband surged in value by more than double in just one month, according to her financial disclosure documents. The disclosures showed Paul Pelosi's 2024 trades resulted in an estimated 54 percent portfolio return, more than doubling the S&P 500's 25 percent gain and outperforming major hedge funds. A significant share of the couple's wealth is said to stem from stock investments and well-timed trades, mostly made under Paul Pelosi's name. By 2024, Quiver Quantitative estimated their stock portfolio at $133.7 million, including stakes in major tech companies such as Apple, Amazon, Google, and NVIDIA,Indian newspaper The Economic Times reported. Notable transactions included a $2.4 million NVIDIA option trade that later skyrocketed in value and an AI cybersecurity call on Palo Alto Networks that yielded about $2.8 million in gains, as reported by the New York Post. The couple's net worth reportedly rose from around $370 million in 2023 to as much as $413 million in 2024. The "Pelosi Tracker," as reported by The Times, is an automated fund that mirrors Paul Pelosi's trades, which delivered about 54 percent returns last year and attracted over $400 million in investor assets, according to numbers in Bloomberg's end-of-year tally of hedge funds' returns, as per the Post. As reported by Newsweek in July, Trump tore into the GOP's Josh Hawley after the Missouri senator was the lone Republican to join Democrats in advancing legislation that would ban members of Congress from buying, selling, or owning individual stocks. Trump holds individual stocks, whereas Vice President JD Vance divested his individual stock holdings during his time in the Senate, as per Business Insider. In a lengthy Truth Social post in July, Trump called Hawley a "pawn" and a "second-tier senator," adding that the GOP lawmaker is "playing right into the dirty hands of the Democrats." What People Are Saying President Donald Trump wrote in a Truth Social post, August 10: "Crooked Nancy Pelosi, and her very "interesting" husband, beat every Hedge Fund in 2024. In other words, these two very average "minds" beat ALL of the Super Geniuses on Wall Street, thousands of them. It's all INSIDE INFORMATION! Is anybody looking into this??? She is a disgusting degenerate, who Impeached me twice, on NO GROUNDS, and LOST! How are you feeling now, Nancy???" Nancy Pelosi spokesperson Ian Krager, previously toldNewsweek:"Speaker Pelosi does not own any stocks and has no knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions." What Happens Next The legislation now heads to the full Senate for debate. If passed, it would ban individual stock trading by high-level officials and their spouses, possibly including forced divestitures. Trump's incendiary language against Nancy and Paul Pelosi is expected to keep this issue prominent in political discussions.
The Hill
19 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump takes on DC: What's next in the battle?
President Trump has moved to increase the number of federal law enforcement on the streets of Washington D.C. — a decision he casts as necessary to combat crime. It's a move widely seen as a rebuke to the District's leadership, including Mayor Muriel Bowser (D). A lot of specifics are as yet undecided, including the total number of additional federal law enforcement officers who will be deployed, and their exact locations. The White House cited security concerns as the reason not to divulge those details. However, White House officials say that an increased law enforcement presence will be seen on D.C.'s streets. This is expected to be present mainly late at night. The effort is being spearheaded by the U.S. Park Police but also involves numerous other agencies including the Capitol Police, the FBI, the Marshals Service and the Drug Enforcement Administration. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that while Washington is 'an amazing city' it 'has been plagued by violent crime for far too long.' She also said that Trump was 'committed' to making D.C. 'safer for its residents, lawmakers and visitors from all around the world.' The idea of a crime crisis in Washington is belied by crime statistics from the city police, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). Those statistics show violent crime so far this year down 26 percent from its 2024 levels. The crime levels in 2024 were, in turn, lower than in 2023. The key question now is, what's next? Does Trump extend the use of federal law enforcement? A White House official describes the current push as one that will 'be beginning as a 7-day effort with the option to extend as needed.' The framing invites a number of other questions —particularly, what difference are federal law enforcement personnel likely to make in a week? The situation in D.C., after all, is not one where there is a riotous situation to quell or widespread disorder stemming from any specific cause. The haziness around the objectives may make a further extension of the federal role more likely. Trump would, presumably, justify such a move on the basis that there was still more work to be done. But multiple reports from the hours after Trump's announcement, when there was supposed to be an increased federal law enforcement presence, did not reveal anything out of the ordinary. An Associated Press report, for example, noted that 'a two-hour tour of the D.C. streets, starting around 1 a.m. Friday, revealed no evidence of the sort of multi-agency flood of uniformed personnel described in Trump's announcement.' Could Trump take over the D.C. police? The short answer is, yes. The bigger question is whether he would want to do so. The District enjoys its current measure of autonomy because of the Home Rule Act of 1973. The legislation reserves some powers for Congress and for the president. Section 740 of the Act notes that if a President 'determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist,' then the D.C. mayor must lend him 'such services of the Metropolitan Police Force as the President may deem necessary and appropriate.' There are some caveats to this power, however. In the first instance, a president cannot take over those powers for longer than 48 hours unless, during that period, he provides a written explanation of his reasons to Congress — or, more specifically, to the chairman and ranking member of the Senate and House committees that pertain to D.C. Trump, however, could likely satisfy this requirement, given the GOP majorities in both chambers. The more salient constraint, therefore, might be the fact that there is a 30-day limit on this power, even if congressional notification is provided. Politically speaking, there is also a question of whether Trump would want to make such a dramatic move. Washington is a very Democratic city — Vice President Harris got more than 90 percent of the vote last November — and reaction to Trump seizing the reins of the local police would surely be negative. How about the National Guard? Here, again, Trump has lots of remove to maneuver. The District of Columbia National Guard can be directed at the behest of the president, in contrast to full states where the power to deploy the Guard resides with the governor. The D.C. National Guard has been at pains to point out that it has not, as yet, been deployed. A spokesperson for the D.C. Guard told CNN on Friday that the force has not been activated and that any 'presence of National Guardsmen and vehicles seen this week and throughout the weekend are related to required training.' What could go wrong? Quite a lot. For a start, Trump could get into more of a pitched battle with Bowser. The mayor has pursued a much more conciliatory approach toward Trump during his second term than she did during his first. She has been supportive of a task force he set up in March and has refrained from comment on his latest moves. That's partly a testament to D.C.'s dependence upon the federal government in numerous ways. Congress in effect withheld $1.1 billion from the District's budget earlier this year. The federal workforce is of enormous economic importance to the overall D.C. area. But whether Bowser can remain quiet if Trump expands his control over D.C. is highly questionable. Washingtonians are already sensitive about their circumscribed rights. There are more macabre things that could go wrong too. Any especially egregious violent crime could make Trump more insistent on federal control. Conversely, any excessive force used against D.C. residents by federal personnel deployed by Trump could ignite new tensions. Can Trump repeal Home Rule itself? Realistically, no. Doing this would require repealing the legislation. The House might go along with that, but Trump would need 60 votes in the Senate. Even if every Republican voted in favor, he would still need the backing of seven Democrats — a highly unlikely scenario.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Hong Kong police warrants ‘act of transnational repression'
Hong Kong police efforts to crack down on pro-democracy campaigners represent 'a clear act of transnational repression', a UK minister has warned. Eleven national governments and the European Union have signed a joint statement, vowing to bolster protection for people within their borders who face intimidation and harassment from administrations overseas. The Hong Kong Police Force last month issued 19 arrest warrants for campaigners who set up and joined the Hong Kong Parliament movement. The campaigners would like to see 'the reconstruction of a free, fair, and self-governing Hong Kong', according to the organisation's website. Police in Hong Kong have offered rewards of up to one million Hong Kong dollars (almost £100,000) to individuals who help track down the campaigners, including people who live outside of their jurisdiction. 'Together with our international partners, we condemn the Hong Kong police's efforts to coerce, intimidate and harass those living in the UK and overseas,' security minister Dan Jarvis wrote on X. 'We will not tolerate these acts of transnational repression in our country.' Referring to the joint statement which the UK has signed, as a member of the G7's rapid response mechanism (RRM), Foreign Office minister Catherine West said: 'The UK and partners have condemned the latest arrest warrants and bounties issued by the Hong Kong Police – a clear act of transnational repression.' The statement, also signed by the governments of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the US, Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Sweden, reads: 'The authorities issued arrest warrants and bounties on individuals outside Hong Kong's borders, including in G7 RRM countries, for exercising their freedom of expression. 'This form of transnational repression undermines national security, state sovereignty, human rights, and the safety of communities.' The signatories added: 'G7 RRM members and associate members are committed to strengthening our efforts to safeguard our sovereignty, to keep our communities safe, and to defend individuals from the overreach of governments trying to silence, intimidate, harass, harm or coerce them within our borders. 'We encourage individuals to report suspicious activities and any incidents of intimidation, harassment, coercion, or threats to their law enforcement authorities in accordance with domestic laws and regulations.' According to the Hong Kong Police Force, the organisation has a 'responsibility to pursue, in accordance with the law, persons suspected of committing offences under the Hong Kong National Security Law outside Hong Kong'. The Hong Kong Parliament group 'aims to subvert state power; its objectives include promoting self-determination, promulgating the so-called Hong Kong Constitution, and overthrowing or undermining the basic system of the People's Republic of China', so its members face arrest suspected of committing 'subversion' according to local laws, a police statement added. In a statement on the Hong Kong Parliament website, the organisation 'stands as both a representative voice and a protective institution for Hongkongers worldwide'. Its members 'are committed to safeguarding our community, defending the rule of law, and exposing the CCP's (Chinese Communist Party's) system of governance for what it is: authoritarianism masked as legitimacy'.
