Account statements sent to the person by the financial institution for the following:
The period during which any specific check covered by a notice under subd. 2.
The period immediately before and immediately after the period specified in subd. 3. a.
The last known address and telephone number for the person's home and business.
The department of justice, a district attorney, or a state or local law enforcement agency may request information under par. (a)
only if the request is in writing and if it states that the requester is investigating whether the person specified violated this section or is prosecuting the person specified under this section.
A financial institution may not impose a fee for providing information under this subsection.
The grace period under sub. (3) does not transform the issuance of a worthless check into a debt for which one may not be imprisoned under Art. I, s. 16. Locklear v. State, 86 Wis. 2d 603
, 273 N.W.2d 334
Checks cashed at a dog track for the purpose of making bets were void gambling contracts under s. 895.055 and could not be enforced under this statute although returned for nonsufficient funds. State v. Gonelly, 173 Wis. 2d 503
, 496 N.W.2d 671
(Ct. App. 1992).
The distinction between present and past consideration under sub. (4) is discussed. State v. Archambeau, 187 Wis. 2d 501
, 523 N.W.2d 150
(Ct. App. 1994).
Each different group of checks totalling more than $1,000, issued during the 15 day period, may be the basis for a separate charge under sub. (2). State v. Hubbard, 206 Wis. 2d 651
, 558 N.W.2d 126
(Ct. App. 1996), 96-0865
Although sub. (5) (b) references the procedures spelled out in s. 800.093, which discusses municipal courts, the authority sub. (5) (b) confers on any "judge" continues to apply. A circuit court judge may impose restitution under s. 943.24, utilizing the procedures provided for by s. 800.093. OAG 3-12
Worthless checks; civil liability. 943.245(1)
In this section, "pecuniary loss" means:
All special damages, but not general damages, including, without limitation because of enumeration, the money equivalent of loss resulting from property taken, destroyed, broken or otherwise harmed and out-of-pocket losses, such as medical expenses; and
Reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the victim resulting from the filing of charges or cooperating in the investigation and prosecution of the offense under s. 943.24
Except as provided in sub. (9)
, any person who incurs pecuniary loss, including any holder in due course of a check or order, may bring a civil action against any adult or emancipated minor who:
Knew, should have known or recklessly disregarded the fact that the check or order was drawn on an account that did not exist, was drawn on an account with insufficient funds or was otherwise worthless.
If the person who incurs the loss prevails, the judgment in the action shall grant monetary relief for all of the following:
The face value of whatever checks or orders were involved.
No additional proof is required for an award of exemplary damages under this paragraph.
Notwithstanding the limitations of s. 799.25
, all actual costs of the action, including reasonable attorney fees.
Notwithstanding sub. (2) (c)
, the total amount awarded for exemplary damages and reasonable attorney fees may not exceed $500 for each violation.
Any recovery under this section shall be reduced by the amount recovered as restitution for the same act under ss. 800.093
or as recompense under s. 969.13 (5) (a)
for the same act and by any amount collected in connection with the act and paid to the plaintiff under a deferred prosecution agreement under s. 971.41
At least 20 days prior to commencing an action, as specified in s. 801.02
, under this section, the plaintiff shall notify the defendant, by mail, of his or her intent to bring the action. Notice of nonpayment or dishonor shall be sent by the payee or holder of the check or order to the drawer by regular mail supported by an affidavit of service of mailing. The plaintiff shall mail the notice to the defendant's last-known address or to the address provided on the check or order. If the defendant pays the check or order prior to the commencement of the action, he or she is not liable under this section.
The plaintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation occurred under s. 943.24
or that he or she incurred a pecuniary loss as a result of the circumstances described in sub. (6)
. A conviction under s. 943.24
is not a condition precedent to bringing an action, obtaining a judgment or collecting that judgment under this section.
In this subsection, "past consideration" does not include work performed, for which a person is entitled to a payroll check.
Whoever issues any check or other order for the payment of money given for a past consideration which, at the time of issuance, the person intends shall not be paid is liable under this section.
A person is not criminally liable under s. 943.30
for any civil action brought in good faith under this section.
Nothing in this section other than sub. (9)
precludes a plaintiff from bringing the action under ch. 799
if the amount claimed is within the jurisdictional limits of s. 799.01 (1) (d)
A person may not bring an action under this section after requesting that a criminal prosecution be deferred under s. 971.41
if the person against whom the action would be brought has complied with the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement.
Removing or damaging encumbered real property. 943.26(1)(1)
Any mortgagor of real property or vendee under a land contract who, without the consent of the mortgagee or vendor, intentionally removes or damages the real property so as to substantially impair the mortgagee's or vendor's security is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
If the security is impaired by more than $1,000, the mortgagor or vendee is guilty of a Class I felony.
History: 1977 c. 173
; 2001 a. 109
Possession of records of certain usurious loans.
Any person who knowingly possesses any writing representing or constituting a record of a charge of, contract for, receipt of or demand for a rate of interest or consideration exceeding $20 upon $100 for one year computed upon the declining principal balance of the loan, use or forbearance of money, goods or things in action or upon the loan, use or sale of credit is, if the rate is prohibited by a law other than this section, guilty of a Class I felony.
Loan sharking prohibited. 943.28(1)
For the purposes of this section:
To collect an extension of credit means to induce in any way any person to make repayment thereof.
An extortionate extension of credit is any extension of credit with respect to which it is the understanding of the creditor and the debtor at the time it is made that delay in making repayment or failure to make repayment could result in the use of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to the person, reputation or property of any person.
An extortionate means is any means which involves the use, or an express or implicit threat of use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to the person, reputation or property of any person.
Whoever makes any extortionate extension of credit, or conspires to do so, if one or more of the parties to the conspiracy does an act to effect its object, is guilty of a Class F felony.
Whoever advances money or property, whether as a gift, as a loan, as an investment, pursuant to a partnership or profit-sharing agreement, or otherwise, for the purpose of making extortionate extensions of credit, is guilty of a Class F felony.
Whoever knowingly participates in any way in the use of any extortionate means to collect or attempt to collect any extension of credit, or to punish any person for the nonrepayment thereof, is guilty of a Class F felony.
An extortionate extension of credit under sub. (1) (b) is not restricted to the original extension of credit, but includes renewals of loans. State v. Green, 208 Wis. 2d 290
, 560 N.W.2d 295
(Ct. App. 1997), 96-0652
Threats to injure or accuse of crime. 943.30(1)
Whoever, either verbally or by any written or printed communication, maliciously threatens to accuse or accuses another of any crime or offense, or threatens or commits any injury to the person, property, business, profession, calling or trade, or the profits and income of any business, profession, calling or trade of another, with intent thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatever, or with intent to compel the person so threatened to do any act against the person's will or omit to do any lawful act, is guilty of a Class H felony.
Whoever violates sub. (1)
by obstructing, delaying or affecting commerce or business or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce or business is guilty of a Class H felony.
Whoever violates sub. (1)
by attempting to influence any petit or grand juror, in the performance of his or her functions as such, is guilty of a Class H felony.
Whoever violates sub. (1)
by attempting to influence the official action of any public officer is guilty of a Class H felony.
Whoever, orally or by any written or printed communication, maliciously uses, or threatens to use, the patient health care records of another person, with intent thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage, or with intent to compel the person so threatened to do any act against the person's will or omit to do any lawful act, is guilty of a Class H felony.
Commencement of a threat need not occur in Wisconsin to support an extortion charge venued in Wisconsin. State v. Kelly, 148 Wis. 2d 774
, 436 N.W.2d 883
(Ct. App. 1989).
A threat to falsely testify unless paid, in violation of criminal law, is a threat to property within the purview of sub. (1). State v. Manthey, 169 Wis. 2d 673
, 487 N.W.2d 44
(Ct. App. 1992).
Extortion is not a lesser included offense of robbery. Convictions for both is not precluded. State v. Dauer, 174 Wis. 2d 418
, 497 N.W.2d 766
(Ct. App. 1993).
A threat to one's education constitutes a threat to one's profession under sub. (1), and a threat to terminate promised financial support could constitute a threat to property. State v. Kittilstad, 231 Wis. 2d 245
, 603 N.W.2d 732
A claim under this section is governed by the 6-year limitation period under s. 893.93 (1) (a). Elbe v. Wausau Hosp. Center, 606 F. Supp. 1491
Threats to communicate derogatory information.
Whoever threatens to communicate to anyone information, whether true or false, which would injure the reputation of the threatened person or another unless the threatened person transfers property to a person known not to be entitled to it is guilty of a Class I felony.
History: 1977 c. 173
; 2001 a. 109
A threat to injure a manager's reputation unless a job is offered violated this section. State v. Gilkes, 118 Wis. 2d 149
, 345 N.W.2d 531
(Ct. App. 1984).
Whoever, with intent to steal, takes property from the person or presence of the owner by either of the following means is guilty of a Class E felony:
By using force against the person of the owner with intent thereby to overcome his or her physical resistance or physical power of resistance to the taking or carrying away of the property; or
By threatening the imminent use of force against the person of the owner or of another who is present with intent thereby to compel the owner to acquiesce in the taking or carrying away of the property.
Whoever violates sub. (1)
by use or threat of use of a dangerous weapon, a device or container described under s. 941.26 (4) (a)
or any article used or fashioned in a manner to lead the victim reasonably to believe that it is a dangerous weapon or such a device or container is guilty of a Class C felony.
In this section "owner" means a person in possession of property whether the person's possession is lawful or unlawful.
While a person who by use of force or a gun seeks to repossess specific property that he or she owns and has a present right of possession to might not have the intention to steal, the taking of money from a debtor by force to pay a debt is robbery unless the accused can trace that ownership to the specific coins and bills in the debtor's possession. Edwards v. State, 49 Wis. 2d 105
, 181 N.W.2d 383
Since attempted robbery requires proof of elements in addition to those required to prove burglary, they are separate and distinct crimes. State v. DiMaggio, 49 Wis. 2d 565
, 182 N.W.2d 466
It is error not to instruct on the allegations that the defendant was armed and that he attempted to conceal his identity, but it is harmless error when the facts are uncontroverted. Claybrooks v. State, 50 Wis. 2d 79
, 183 N.W.2d 139
On a charge of armed robbery, the court should instruct as to the definition of a dangerous weapon, but the error is harmless if all the evidence is to the effect that the defendant had a gun. Claybrooks v. State, 50 Wis. 2d 87
, 183 N.W.2d 143
If the evidence is clear that the defendant was armed, the court need not submit a verdict of unarmed robbery. Kimmons v. State, 51 Wis. 2d 266
, 186 N.W.2d 308
An information charging armed robbery is void if it fails to allege the use of or threat of force to overcome the owner's resistance. Champlain v. State, 53 Wis. 2d 751
, 193 N.W.2d 868
Theft is a lesser included offense of robbery. Both require asportation. Moore v. State, 55 Wis. 2d 1
, 197 N.W.2d 820
Taking a pouch from the victim by force and in such a manner as to overcome any physical resistance or power of resistance constituted robbery and not theft under s. 943.20. Walton v. State, 64 Wis. 2d 36
, 218 N.W.2d 309
When a victim testified that the defendant's accomplice held an object to his throat while the defendant took money from his person and the defendant testified that no robbery whatsoever occurred, the jury was presented with no evidence indicating that a robbery absent the threat of force had occurred. It was not error to deny the defendant's request for an instruction on theft from a person. State v. Powers, 66 Wis. 2d 84
, 224 N.W.2d 206
When a defendant lost money to a dice cheat and thereafter recovered a similar amount at gunpoint, the jury could convict despite the defendant's claim that the bills recovered were those lost. Austin v. State, 86 Wis. 2d 213
, 271 N.W.2d 668
Sub. (1) states one offense that may be committed by alternate means. The jury was properly instructed in the disjunctive on the force element. Manson v. State, 101 Wis. 2d 413
, 304 N.W.2d 729