to intentionally appropriate mail without the addressee's consent with the intent to deprive the addressee of the mail or steal a negotiable instrument. That matters in cases involving checks, money orders and other negotiable instruments. MORE: Five people, including three postal carriers charged in alleged multi-million dollar stolen check scheme The law also establishes escalating penalties for certain mail-theft offenses involving negotiable instruments when the theft was committed with the intent to facilitate fraud under Chapter 32 of the Penal Code. Five or fewer negotiable instruments can result in a state jail felony. More than five but fewer than 10 can be a third-degree felony. Ten to fewer than 50 can be a second-degree felony, and 50 or more can be a first-degree felony. The law also allows the punishment to increase by one category when the actor knew or had reason to believe the victim was elderly or disabled. The legislation also created a separate felony offense involving mail-receptacle keys and locks. A person who, with the intent to harm or defraud another person or deprive them of property, obtains, possesses, duplicates, transfers or uses a postal-service key or lock can face a third-degree felony. A subsequent conviction can be punished as a second-degree felony. And the issue is not new. The Criminal Justice Impact Statement cited in connection with the legislation says that in fiscal year 2024, there were 779 arrests, 34 referrals, 36 people placed on adult community supervision and 15 admissions to an adult state correctional institution for mail-theft offenses. The new law was designed, in part, to address incidents involving financial instruments and mailboxes. SEE ALSO: What we know about 5 people indicted in a $24M stolen check scheme involving USPS mail carriers on Houston routes What counties told us We contacted prosecutors' offices in several counties across the Houston area and asked whether they had charged or prosecuted anyone under the new law between September 1, 2025, when SB 1281 took effect, and May 1, 2026. The responses show a mixed picture. Fort Bend County Mark LaForge, assistant district attorney and civil division chief for the Fort Bend County District Attorney's Office, told us his office had filed zero prosecutions or formal charges under Penal Code Section 31.20 during the period we asked about. LaForge said his office considered one case in September 2025 that had been investigated by the sheriff's office but ultimately did not file charges. He also said there were two other suspects, not arrested, connected to incidents in March and April 2026. Those cases remained under review as the office evaluated the evidence. Montgomery County Leah Manske with the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office told us the office had filed one case involving mail theft. According to Manske, the charge came out of a shoplifting investigation and did not involve an allegation that money had been stolen. Brazoria County The Brazoria County District Attorney's Office told us eight people were charged during the timeframe we requested. The office said all eight cases had been dismissed or otherwise disposed of. Chambers County Chambers County told us there were 10 cases filed under the relevant codes during the period covered by our request. The county's response did not provide additional details about the outcomes of those cases. Harris County Harris County responded to our public-information request on May 28, 2026, saying it located no responsive records after a reasonably search. The county added an important clarification: Mail-theft cases filed during the requested period were from portions of Penal Code Section 31.20 that pre-dated SB 1281. In other words, the absence of responsive records did not mean Harris County had no mail-theft cases. It meant the county did not identify records responsive to our request for cases under the new law provisions. Galveston County and Liberty County Our reporting also sought information from Galveston County and Liberty County. Galveston County provided information indicating 11 charges during the period covered by our reporting. We did not receive a response from Liberty County. Martin's Richmond case raises another question Martin's case began in Richmond. She says her son dropped off the $900 money order at the Richmond post office in October 2025. Martin filed an incident report with Richmond Police. According to information we obtained during our reporting, the police investigation included an effort to track down the signature on the back of the cashed money order. The case was eventually referred to federal postal investigators. We contacted the U.S. Postal Inspection Service while reporting on this in June. Miguel Arispe, a U.S. Postal Inspector with the Houston Division, confirmed that Martin's case remains open with the Postal Inspection Service but said he could not discuss the details of an active investigation. Arispe also confirmed something broader: federal investigators are actively investigating the mail-theft issue at the Richmond post office. We are actively investigating the mail theft issue that is happening here at this Richmond Post Office, Arispe said. He explained that postal inspectors are federal law enforcement agents who investigate crimes involving the mail. We receive hundreds of complaints weekly, Arispe said, emphasizing the volume of cases handled by the Houston division. But for Martin, that explanation does little to answer the question she has been asking for months: What happened to her money? We tried to follow the money The money order Martin received from her bank contained a phone number on the back. During our reporting, we called with Martin. At first, no one answered. Later, the person called back. Using a reverse number search, we located an address associated with the phone number. We went to the address and left a business card. Hours later, we received a call from a person who said she was confused about why reporters had come to her door. The person was not connected the potential theft. The person behind the transaction remains unresolved through our reporting. Martin says the new law means little without enforcement For Martin, the passage of a new law is only part of the equation. I'm glad that we have a new law, but unless you enforce it, she said, and part of that law needs to be helping victims. That frustration is at the heart of the larger question raised by the numbers we received from area prosecutors. SB 1281 is now on the books. It specifically addresses the theft of negotiable instruments through the mail and creates additional criminal consequences for certain conduct involving mail receptacles. But the records we obtained show that the number and type of cases being pursued under the law vary from county to county. And in Martin's case, the investigation has moved from local police to federal postal investigators. And she says the wait continues. She says she did everything she was supposed to do: she bought a legitimate money order, sent it to pay a legitimate bill and expected it to arrive. Instead, the money disappeared. This wasn't some goofball on Marketplace or somebody jugging me or any of the other nasty things that can happen or somebody scamming me, Martin said. You know, this was doing all the right things and losing out anyway.