Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case involves unique facts and circumstances. If you are facing charges under the UCMJ, consult with a qualified military defense attorney immediately.
Both extortion and larceny involve wrongfully taking property from another person. The critical difference is how the taking occurs. Larceny involves taking property without the owner’s knowledge or through deception. Extortion involves obtaining property through threats or coercion, where the victim hands over the property because they’ve been threatened. One is taking by stealth; the other is taking by fear.
The Consent Distinction (Sort Of)
In larceny, there’s no consent. The owner doesn’t know the taking is occurring, or is deceived about it. The thief takes property against the owner’s will and without their knowledge.
In extortion, there’s coerced “consent.” The owner hands over the property, but only because they’ve been threatened. This isn’t true consent; it’s compliance under duress. The victim chooses to give up property rather than suffer the threatened harm.
This distinction matters because:
Larceny is completed through the thief’s actions alone
Extortion requires the victim to respond to threats by surrendering property
The psychological coercion in extortion differentiates it from simple theft.
Article 127: Extortion Explained
Extortion under Article 127 requires:
Communicating threats to another person
With intention to obtain something of value or an advantage
To which the accused is not entitled
The threats can include threats to:
Injure the person, their property, or their reputation
Accuse them of a crime
Expose a secret or disgrace them
Take or withhold official action
The victim doesn’t have to actually surrender the property. The offense is complete when the threat is communicated with the intent to obtain value. But in most cases, the extortionist does receive property from the frightened victim.
Article 121: Larceny Explained
Larceny under Article 121 requires:
Wrongfully taking, obtaining, or withholding
Property of another
Of certain value
With intent to permanently deprive
The taking can occur through:
Physical taking (picking up and carrying away)
Obtaining through false pretenses (lying to get property)
Withholding (keeping property that should be returned)
None of these methods involve threatening the victim. The property is taken without the owner’s effective consent, either through stealth, deception, or abuse of possession.
How Extortion Differs From Robbery
Both extortion and robbery involve threats to obtain property. The difference is timing and type of threat:
Robbery involves immediate force or threat of force to take property present at that moment. “Give me your wallet or I’ll hit you now.”
Extortion typically involves future harm or ongoing threats, and the property may be delivered later. “Pay me $1,000 by Friday or I’ll tell your commander about your affair.”
Robbery is immediate and violent. Extortion can be ongoing and psychological. Both are more serious than larceny because they involve direct coercion of the victim.
Typical Fact Patterns
Clear larceny:
A service member takes a laptop from another’s desk when no one is around. No threats, no coercion, no knowledge by the owner. Pure larceny.
A service member borrows money under false pretenses, claiming they’ll repay by Friday, but never intending to repay. Obtaining property through fraud is larceny, not extortion, because no threats were involved.
Clear extortion:
A service member discovers a colleague is having an extramarital affair. They send a message: “Pay me $500 or I’m telling your spouse and your commander.” This is extortion through threat to expose a secret.
A service member threatens to report a colleague’s drug use (which they witnessed) unless the colleague pays them $200. This is extortion through threat to accuse of a crime.
An NCO tells a subordinate: “Give me your watch or I’ll make sure you get the worst assignments for the rest of your time here.” This is extortion through threat to take unfavorable official action.
The distinction in action:
Service Member A steals money from Service Member B’s wallet while B is in the shower. Larceny: taken without knowledge.
Service Member A tells Service Member B: “I saw you steal supplies from the warehouse. Pay me $300 or I’m reporting you.” Extortion: obtained through threat.
Same result (A gets B’s money), completely different method and charge.
Punishment Comparison
Article 127 (Extortion):
Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 3 years
Article 121 (Larceny):
Military property or property over $1,000: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 10 years
Property $1,000 or less: bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 1 year
Interestingly, extortion carries a lower maximum (3 years) than larceny of significant value (10 years). This seems counterintuitive since extortion involves threats. The explanation may be historical or may reflect that extortion often involves smaller amounts or ongoing payment schemes.
However, extortion often accompanies other offenses (communicating threats, blackmail-type conduct) that may be charged separately, increasing overall punishment exposure.
The Threat Element
The threat in extortion must be:
Communicated. The victim must receive the threat. Unexpressed intentions aren’t extortion.
Intentional. The extortionist must intend to obtain value through the threat.
To obtain something of value. The purpose must be gain. Threatening without intent to gain isn’t extortion (though it may be other offenses).
Threats can be express (“I’ll tell everyone”) or implied (meaningful looks, veiled statements). Context determines whether a communication constitutes a threat.
When the Threat Is True
A unique aspect of extortion: the threat can be to expose true information.
If the colleague really did have an affair, threatening to expose it is still extortion.
If the colleague really did steal supplies, threatening to report it unless paid is still extortion.
The truth of the threatened exposure doesn’t justify the extortion. You can’t use threats of truthful disclosure to extract payment.
This distinguishes extortion from legitimate reporting. Telling someone “I’m going to report your misconduct” isn’t extortion. Telling them “Pay me or I’ll report your misconduct” is.
Blackmail Relationship
Blackmail is essentially a form of extortion involving threats to expose embarrassing information. The UCMJ doesn’t have a separate blackmail article; such conduct is charged as extortion under Article 127.
Classic blackmail scenarios:
Threatening to reveal affairs or sexual conduct
Threatening to expose financial improprieties
Threatening to publicize embarrassing photos
Threatening to disclose secrets
All are charged as extortion when the threat is made to obtain value.
Defenses
For extortion:
No threat was made (the communication wasn’t threatening)
No intent to obtain value (wasn’t trying to get anything)
The accused was entitled to what they sought (not trying to obtain something wrongfully)
The victim didn’t receive the threat
For larceny:
Permission or authorization to take the property
Claim of right (genuinely believed they owned the property)
No intent to permanently deprive
No taking occurred
Reporting vs Extorting
The line between proper reporting and extortion requires attention:
Proper reporting: “I witnessed your misconduct and I’m going to report it to the commander.”
Extortion: “I witnessed your misconduct. If you don’t pay me, I’ll report it to the commander.”
The demand for payment (or other value) transforms reporting into extortion. Without the demand for value, there’s no extortion, even if the report would harm the person.
Multiple Offenses
Extortion often accompanies other charges:
Communicating threats (Article 115 or 134): The threat itself may be an offense
Obstruction of justice: If the extortion involves not reporting crimes
Conduct unbecoming: For officers, extortion may also be charged under Article 133
General article violations: Related misconduct under Article 134
A single extortion scheme can result in multiple charges addressing different aspects of the conduct.
Military Context
Extortion in military settings often involves:
Abuse of rank or position: NCOs or officers extorting subordinates using their authority
Military information: Threatening to expose misconduct that would result in military consequences
Access to systems: Threatening adverse personnel actions, assignments, or evaluations
The military’s hierarchical structure creates opportunities for position-based extortion that don’t exist in civilian life.
Frequently Asked Questions
If someone owes me money and I threaten to take them to court unless they pay, is that extortion?
No, threatening legitimate legal action to recover a debt isn’t extortion because you’re entitled to what you’re seeking. You have a right to payment of a valid debt, and threatening to enforce that right through courts is proper. The key is that extortion involves obtaining something “to which the accused is not entitled.” If someone genuinely owes you $500, demanding that $500 (even with threats of legal action) isn’t extortion. However, demanding $1,000 when they only owe $500 could be extortion for the excess amount. Similarly, threatening to report unrelated misconduct unless they pay a legitimate debt might be extortion because you’re using improper leverage even for a proper claim.
What if I threatened to report someone’s misconduct unless they stopped the misconduct (not for money)?
This gets complicated. Extortion requires intent to obtain “something of value.” If you’re threatening exposure to obtain behavioral change rather than money or property, it’s less clearly extortion. However, “something of value” can be interpreted broadly to include advantages beyond money. If the behavioral change benefits you in some material way, it might qualify. Even if not extortion, threatening to expose misconduct unless demands are met might be other offenses: communicating threats, coercion, or conduct unbecoming. The safest approach is to report misconduct through proper channels rather than using knowledge of it as personal leverage.
Can I be charged with both larceny and extortion for the same property?
They’re different offenses that wouldn’t typically apply to the same taking. If you stole property through stealth (no threats), that’s larceny, not extortion. If you obtained property through threats, that’s extortion, not larceny. You wouldn’t be charged with both for the same act because the methods are mutually exclusive: either you threatened the victim or you didn’t. However, if you extorted someone (obtained property through threats) and then also stole additional property from them (took without their knowledge), you could face both charges for the different acts. Additionally, extortion might be accompanied by other charges like communicating threats or robbery depending on the specific facts.