Theft in a Business Setting Defense Lawyer in Wisconsin
Charged with theft in a business setting under Wis. Stat. § 943.20(1)(b)? Often referred to as embezzlement, these cases often involve complex bookkeeping issues, unclear authority, poorly defined job duties, or business-owner disputes. Contact Chirafisi Anderson, S.C. today to start your defense.
What the Law Says About Theft in a Business Setting in Wisconsin
Wis. Stat. § 943.20(1)(b) makes it a crime for a person who has lawful possession of another’s money because of their job, office, business role, or status as a trustee or bailee to intentionally use that money without the owner’s consent, contrary to their authority, and with intent to convert it to their own use or the use of someone else.
This law frequently applies to bookkeepers, managers, receptionists, employees responsible for deposits, individuals handling trust accounts, or anyone who collects payments or manages funds for another person or business. Crucially, the State does not have to prove an intent to permanently deprive the owner – any intentional use outside the scope of authority can satisfy the statute.
At Chirafisi Anderson, S.C. we defend misdemeanor and felony theft charges across Wisconsin including theft in a business setting.
Elements of Theft in a Business Setting in Wisconsin
To convict someone of Theft by Employee, Trustee, or Bailee under Wis. Stat. § 943.20(1)(b), the State must prove all of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
- Possession Due to Position – The defendant had possession of money belonging to someone else because of their employment, office, business role, or position as trustee/bailee.
- Intentional Unauthorized Use – The defendant intentionally used (or transferred, concealed, or retained) that money without the owner’s consent and contrary to their authority.
- Knowledge of Lack of Consent/Authority – The defendant knew their use of the money was without consent and outside their permitted authority.
- Intent to Convert – The defendant intended to convert the money to their own use or the use of another person.
These elements are taken from Wisconsin Jury Instruction – Criminal 1444, which courts use to instruct juries in employee-embezzlement-related cases.
REQUEST A FREE AND CONFIDENTIAL CONSULTATION
Penalties and Sentencing for Embezzlement in Wisconsin
Penalties depend on the value of the money allegedly misused. Wisconsin law allows prosecutors to aggregate multiple alleged misuses into a single charge if they occurred “pursuant to a single intent and design,” meaning even small transactions can become a felony.
|
Value of Money Taken |
Classification |
Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|
|
$2,500 or less |
Class A Misdemeanor |
Up to 9 months jail and $10,000 fine |
|
$2,500 – $5,000 |
Class I Felony |
Up to 3.5 years imprisonment (1.5 years initial confinement + 2 years extended supervision) and $10,000 fine |
|
$5,000 – $10,000 |
Class H Felony |
Up to 6 years imprisonment (3 years initial confinement + 3 years extended supervision) and $10,000 fine |
|
$10,000 – $100,000 |
Class G Felony |
Up to 10 years imprisonment (5 years initial confinement + 5 years extended supervision) and $25,000 fine |
|
> $100,000 |
Class F Felony |
Up to 12.5 years imprisonment (7.5 years initial confinement + 5 years extended supervision) and $25,000 fine |
Courts frequently order restitution, which can be a major factor in plea negotiations and sentencing outcomes.
Common Scenarios in Wisconsin Theft in a Business Setting Cases
- Bookkeeping or accounting errors — Mistaken transfers, mis-categorizations, or undocumented cash withdrawals.
- Small business disputes — Arguments between business partners or family-run operations over profits, reimbursements, or distributions.
- Unauthorized reimbursements or advances — Using company funds before approval or relying on past informal practices.
- Deposit or cash-handling discrepancies — Accusations that deposits were short or that cash was removed without paperwork.
- Trust or fiduciary roles — Misunderstandings involving escrow accounts, client funds, or entrusted payments.
- Alleged “rounding” or “borrowing” — Situations where employees claim they intended to pay the money back.
In many cases, the core dispute revolves around bookkeeping practices and unclear expectations, not intentional criminal conduct.
Defenses and Legal Strategies in Theft in a Business Setting Cases
Effective defense strategies often include:
Why Hiring a Theft in a Business Setting Lawyer Matters
Facing a theft-in-a-business-setting allegation is uniquely damaging – it threatens your career, your reputation, and your financial stability. These cases often hinge on accounting misunderstandings, poor documentation, or workplace miscommunication rather than intentional wrongdoing. The attorneys at Chirafisi Anderson, S.C. have the experience and proven results to challenge intent, authority, and valuation issues, ensuring the State meets its heavy burden of proof.
Theft in a Business Setting Case Result
Contact Chirafisi Anderson, S.C.
If you are under investigation or charged with theft in a business setting, early intervention can mean the difference between a misdemeanor, a felony, or avoiding charges entirely. Contact us today for a free consultation.