49 U.S.C. § 14915

Penalties for failure to give up possession of household goods

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Civil Penalty.—(1)In general.—Whoever is found holding a household goods shipment hostage is liable to the United States for a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 for each violation. The United States may assign all or a portion of the civil penalty to an aggrieved shipper. The Secretary of Transportation shall establish criteria upon which such assignments shall be made. The Secretary may order, after notice and an opportunity for a proceeding, that a person found holding a household goods shipment hostage return the goods to an aggrieved shipper.(2)Each day, a separate violation.—Each day a carrier is found to have failed to give up possession of household goods may constitute a separate violation.(3)Suspension.—If the person found holding a shipment hostage is a carrier or broker, the Secretary may suspend for a period of not less than 12 months nor more than 36 months the registration of such carrier or broker under chapter 139. The force and effect of such suspension of a carrier or broker shall extend to and include any carrier or broker having the same ownership or operational control as the suspended carrier or broker.(4)Settlement authority.—Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the Secretary from accepting partial payment of a civil penalty as part of a settlement agreement in the public interest, or from holding imposition of any part of a civil penalty in abeyance.(b)Criminal Penalty.—Whoever has been convicted of having failed to give up possession of household goods shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both.(c)Failure To Give Up Possession of Household Goods Defined.—For purposes of this section, the term “failed to give up possession of household goods” means the knowing and willful failure, in violation of a contract, to deliver to, or unload at, the destination of a shipment of household goods that is subject to jurisdiction under subchapter I or III of chapter 135 of this title, for which charges have been estimated by the motor carrier providing transportation of such goods, and for which the shipper has tendered a payment described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of section 13707(b)(3)(A).(Added Pub. L. 109–59, title IV, § 4210(a), Aug. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1758; amended Pub. L. 112–141, div. C, title II, §§ 32922(b), 32923(b), July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 828.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2012—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 112–141, § 32922(b), inserted at end “The United States may assign all or a portion of the civil penalty to an aggrieved shipper. The Secretary of Transportation shall establish criteria upon which such assignments shall be made. The Secretary may order, after notice and an opportunity for a proceeding, that a person found holding a household goods shipment hostage return the goods to an aggrieved shipper.”

Subsec. (a)(4). Pub. L. 112–141, § 32923(b), added par. (4).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2012 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 112–141 effective Oct. 1, 2012, see section 3(a) of Pub. L. 112–141, set out as an Effective and Termination Dates of 2012 Amendment note under section 101 of Title 23, Highways.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2019–2025 · leading case: United States v. Arvaham Zano (11th Cir. 2024).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Arvaham Zano (11th Cir. 2024). · cites it 3× “Zano argues on appeal that the district court erred in the written judgment with respect to the three-year term of supervised release for two rea- sons: ﬁrst, because the oral pronouncement controls over a con- ﬂicting written judgment; and second, because a conviction under 49…”

Witherspoon Holdings, Inc. v. Coyote Logistics, LLC (N.D. Ill. 2025). · cites it 2× “In support of this assertion, Coyote points to 49 U.S.C. § 14915 , titled “Penalties for failure to give up possession of household goods,” and argues that this federal statute defines the act of holding a shipment “hostage” as “the knowing and willful failure, in violation of a…”

Ripley v. Long Distance Relocation Servs., LLC (D. Maryland 2019). “§ 1343 , extortion in violation of state law and 49 U.S.C. § 14915 , and interference with commerce in violation of 18 U.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.