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.
The word “solicitation” appears in multiple UCMJ contexts with different meanings. Article 82 addresses soliciting another person to commit any offense under the UCMJ, essentially asking someone to commit a crime. Article 134 includes specific prostitution-related offenses where “solicitation” means offering or requesting sexual services for payment. Understanding which type of solicitation applies depends on what’s being requested: commission of any crime (Article 82) versus commercial sex specifically (Article 134).
Two Different Meanings of “Solicitation”
Article 82 Solicitation uses the term broadly:
Asking, commanding, inducing, or otherwise influencing another person to commit any UCMJ offense
The “solicitation” is the request to commit any crime
The underlying offense doesn’t have to be completed
Article 134 Prostitution/Pandering offenses use “solicitation” narrowly:
Offering to engage in sexual acts for money (soliciting as a prostitute)
Offering to pay for sexual acts (soliciting a prostitute)
The “solicitation” refers specifically to the commercial sex transaction
These are completely different uses of the same word, addressing different misconduct.
Article 82: General Solicitation
Under Article 82, solicitation means asking or influencing someone to commit any UCMJ offense. Elements include:
The accused solicited or advised another person to commit an offense under the UCMJ
The accused intended that the offense actually be committed
This covers:
Asking someone to steal property (soliciting larceny)
Encouraging someone to assault another (soliciting assault)
Requesting someone to lie under oath (soliciting perjury)
Any request to commit any offense
The solicited offense doesn’t need to occur. The crime is complete when the request is made with intent that it be carried out.
Article 134: Prostitution Offenses
Article 134 includes several prostitution-related offenses:
Prostitution. Engaging in sexual acts for money or compensation.
Patronizing a prostitute. Paying for sexual acts.
Pandering. Compelling, inducing, or arranging for someone to engage in prostitution.
Receiving money from prostitution. Profiting from someone else’s prostitution.
These offenses focus specifically on commercial sex. The “solicitation” involved is requesting or offering sexual services for payment, not asking someone to commit a crime generally.
The Overlap Scenario
These articles can overlap when someone asks another to commit a prostitution offense:
Example: Service Member A tells Service Member B to become a prostitute and turn over the proceeds. This could be:
Article 82: Soliciting B to commit prostitution (asking B to commit a crime)
Article 134: Pandering (arranging for prostitution)
The same conduct might support charges under both articles.
Example: Service Member A asks civilian B, “Will you have sex with me for $100?”
This is Article 134 patronizing a prostitute (or attempted), not Article 82 solicitation, because the “crime” being requested is the commercial sex transaction itself.
When Each Article Applies
Article 82 clearly applies when:
You ask someone to commit any offense (other than prostitution-specific)
You encourage someone to commit drug offenses, theft, assault, or other crimes
You try to recruit someone into a criminal scheme
The underlying offense doesn’t have to be completed
Article 134 prostitution offenses clearly apply when:
You offer sex for money
You pay for sex
You arrange for others to engage in prostitution
You profit from prostitution
The transaction is specifically about commercial sex
Typical Fact Patterns
Clear Article 82 (general solicitation):
A service member asks a colleague to steal supplies from the warehouse and sell them. This is solicitation to commit larceny under Article 82.
A service member offers to pay someone $500 to assault a third party. This is solicitation to commit assault under Article 82.
An NCO tells subordinates to falsify training records. This is solicitation to commit false official statements under Article 82.
Clear Article 134 (prostitution offenses):
A service member pays for sexual services from a prostitute while on liberty overseas. This is patronizing a prostitute under Article 134.
A service member offers sexual services in exchange for money or gifts. This is prostitution under Article 134.
A service member arranges for others to engage in prostitution and takes a cut. This is pandering and receiving proceeds under Article 134.
The overlap:
A service member recruits others to become prostitutes for their operation. This is both solicitation under Article 82 (asking others to commit the crime of prostitution) and pandering under Article 134 (arranging for prostitution).
Punishment Comparison
Article 82 (Solicitation):
The maximum punishment equals the maximum for the solicited offense, except that the death penalty isn’t applicable to solicitation even if the underlying offense carries death
Article 134 (Prostitution Offenses):
Prostitution: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 1 year
Patronizing a prostitute: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 1 year
Pandering by compelling prostitution: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 5 years
Pandering by arranging prostitution: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 5 years
The punishments vary significantly based on the specific offense involved.
Defenses
For Article 82 (solicitation):
No request or encouragement was made
No intent that the offense actually be committed (mere discussion or hypothetical)
The person solicited was not asked to commit a UCMJ offense
Withdrawal (limited; solicitation is complete when made)
For Article 134 (prostitution):
No exchange of money or compensation occurred or was contemplated
No sexual act occurred or was intended
Entrapment (government induced the offense)
The accused didn’t know the person was a prostitute (for patronizing)
The Human Trafficking Connection
Modern prosecution of prostitution-related offenses increasingly considers trafficking:
Victims. Some people involved in prostitution are trafficking victims under coercion.
Traffickers. Those who force or coerce others into prostitution face severe penalties.
Demand. Those who pay for sex may be supporting trafficking operations.
This context affects how military authorities approach these cases. Victims may be treated differently from willing participants or traffickers.
Location Considerations
Prostitution offenses often occur overseas:
Foreign countries. Different laws apply, but UCMJ still covers service members.
Liberty ports. Historical patterns of prostitution around military installations.
Deployment locations. Particular concerns about trafficking and exploitation.
Regardless of local laws (some countries have legal prostitution), service members remain subject to UCMJ prohibition on prostitution offenses.
Investigation and Evidence
For Article 82 solicitation:
Communications showing the request (texts, emails, recorded conversations)
Witness testimony about what was said
Evidence of intent that the offense be committed
For Article 134 prostitution:
Financial transactions or evidence of payment
Communications arranging the encounter
Witness testimony
Physical evidence from the location
Undercover operations
Both types of cases may involve surveillance, undercover operations, and electronic evidence.
The Attempt Distinction
Article 82 doesn’t require the solicited offense to be completed or even attempted. The crime is the asking.
Article 134 prostitution requires completion of the offense or can be charged as attempt if the transaction was interrupted before completion.
This matters because Article 82 solicitation is complete earlier in the criminal timeline than many prostitution offenses.
Frequently Asked Questions
If I asked someone to commit a crime but they refused and nothing happened, can I still be charged?
Yes. Article 82 solicitation is complete when you make the request with intent that the crime be committed. The other person’s response doesn’t matter. If they refused, the solicited offense wasn’t committed, but your solicitation was complete. You asked them to commit a crime; that’s the offense. This makes solicitation a useful charge for law enforcement because it doesn’t require the underlying crime to occur. Even if the person you asked immediately reported you, the solicitation already occurred. The only defense related to the other person’s response would be if your “request” was obviously a joke or hypothetical that no reasonable person would take seriously.
What’s the difference between soliciting a prostitute and soliciting someone to become a prostitute?
These are different offenses under different theories. “Soliciting a prostitute” (Article 134) means offering to pay someone for sex. The customer is the one doing the soliciting; the offense is attempting to purchase sexual services. “Soliciting someone to become a prostitute” (Article 82 or Article 134 pandering) means asking or inducing someone to enter the profession of prostitution. This is what a pimp or trafficker does when recruiting. The first is about purchasing a transaction; the second is about recruiting people into the trade. Both are serious offenses but involve different conduct and different culpability.
Can I be charged with both Article 82 and Article 134 for the same conduct involving prostitution?
Potentially. If your conduct satisfies the elements of both articles, prosecutors might charge both. For example, recruiting others into a prostitution ring could be both solicitation to commit an offense (Article 82) and pandering (Article 134). Courts apply multiplicity rules to prevent unfair double punishment, but multiple charges for the same conduct can proceed to allow the panel flexibility in determining which offense is proven. In practice, prosecutors usually charge the most appropriate specific offense rather than stacking overlapping charges, but the possibility exists when conduct clearly violates both provisions.