Ark. Code Ann. § 5-18-103 (2026)
Trafficking of persons
-
A person commits the offense of trafficking of persons if he or she knowingly:
- Recruits, harbors, transports, obtains, entices, solicits, isolates, provides, or maintains a person knowing that the person will be subjected to involuntary servitude;
- Benefits financially or benefits by receiving anything of value from participation in a venture under subdivision (a)(1) of this section;
- Subjects a person to involuntary servitude;
- Recruits, entices, solicits, isolates, harbors, transports, provides, maintains, or obtains a minor for commercial sexual activity;
- Sells or offers to sell travel services that he or she knows include an activity prohibited under subdivisions (a)(1)-(4) of this section;
- Recruits, entices, solicits, isolates, harbors, transports, provides, maintains, or obtains a pregnant woman for the purpose of causing the pregnant woman by the use of or threatened use of physical force to place the baby who is not yet born for adoption; or
- Benefits financially or benefits by receiving anything of value from participating in an act described under subdivision (a)(6) of this section.
-
It is not a defense to prosecution under subdivision (a)(4) of this section that the actor:
- Did not have knowledge of a victim's age; or
- Mistakenly believed a victim was not a minor.
-
- Trafficking of persons is a Class A felony.
- Trafficking of persons is a Class Y felony if a victim was a minor at the time of the offense.
- In addition to any other sentence authorized by this section, a person who violates this section by offering to pay, agreeing to pay, or paying a fee to engage in sexual activity upon conviction shall be ordered to pay a fine of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) to be deposited into the Safe Harbor Fund for Sexually Exploited Children.
History. Acts 2013, No. 132, § 3; 2013, No. 133, § 3; 2013, No. 1257, § 4; 2015, No. 1080, § 1; 2019, No. 1022, § 1.
A.C.R.C. Notes. Acts 2013, No. 1257, § 1, provided: Legislative findings.
“The General Assembly finds that:
“(1) The criminal justice system is not the appropriate place for sexually exploited children because it serves to retraumatize them and to increase their feelings of low self-esteem;
“(2) Both federal and international law recognize that sexually exploited children are the victims of crime and should be treated as such;
“(3) Sexually exploited children should, when possible, be diverted into services that address the needs of these children outside of the justice system; and
“(4) Sexually exploited children deserve the protection of child welfare services, including diversion, crisis intervention, counseling, and emergency housing services.”
Acts 2013, No. 1257, § 2, provided: Legislative intent.
“(1) The intent of this act is to protect a child from further victimization after the child is discovered to be a sexually exploited child by ensuring that a child protective response is in place in the state.
“(2) This is to be accomplished by presuming that any child engaged in prostitution or solicitation is a victim of sex trafficking and providing these children with the appropriate care and services when possible.
“(3) In determining the need for and capacity of services that may be provided, the Department of Human Services shall recognize that sexually exploited children have separate and distinct service needs according to gender, and every effort should be made to ensure that these children are not prosecuted or treated as juvenile delinquents, but instead are given the appropriate social services.”
Amendments. The 2015 amendment added (a)(5).
The 2019 amendment substituted “include” for “includes” in (a)(5); and added (a)(6) and (a)(7).
Research References
ALR.
Validity, Construction, and Application of State Statutes Proscribing Human Trafficking. 101 A.L.R.6th 417 (2015).
Case Notes
Evidence Sufficient.
Substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict that defendant was guilty of human trafficking of a minor for commercial sexual activity under subdivision (a)(4) of this section where the victim and her friend testified that defendant knowingly provided the victim to a man in exchange for methamphetamine, and that testimony was not so inherently improbable, physically impossible, or so clearly unbelievable that reasonable minds could not have differed about it. Lee v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 184, 574 S.W.3d 211 (2019).