Theft is among the most commonly charged offenses in Wisconsin, and the single question that decides where a theft case lives — municipal-style misdemeanor or serious felony — is usually the value of what was allegedly taken. Usually, but not always. Several other provisions move a theft charge up the ladder regardless of value, and clients are routinely surprised by every one of them.
This article sets out what Wis. Stat. § 943.20 actually covers, how the dollar thresholds work, the circumstances that make a low-value theft a felony anyway, and what the civil side of a retail-theft case really looks like.
Theft is five separate offenses, not one
Section 943.20 (1) describes five distinct ways to commit theft, and they do not share the same elements. The distinction matters, because a defense built for one of them is irrelevant to another.
- § 943.20 (1) (a) — intentionally taking and carrying away, using, transferring, concealing, or retaining possession of movable property of another without consent and with intent to deprive the owner permanently of possession. This is the paragraph most people mean by “theft.”
- § 943.20 (1) (b) — the embezzlement paragraph. Someone who holds money or a negotiable instrument by virtue of office, business, or employment, or as trustee or bailee, and uses, transfers, conceals, or retains it without consent and contrary to authority, with intent to convert it to his or her own use or another’s. Note what is not required: no taking and carrying away, and no intent to deprive permanently. A refusal to deliver the money on lawful demand is prima facie evidence of intent to convert.
- § 943.20 (1) (c) — taking property out of the possession of a pledgee or other person with a superior right of possession, even though the actor has a legal interest in it.
- § 943.20 (1) (d) — theft by fraud: obtaining title to property by intentionally deceiving the owner with a known false representation made with intent to defraud, which does defraud. A promise made with intent not to perform it counts as a false representation if it is part of a false and fraudulent scheme.
- § 943.20 (1) (e) — intentionally failing to return personal property held under a written lease or rental agreement after the agreement expires. There is a ten-day grace period, and it does not apply to motor vehicles.
So the common statement that the State must always prove an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property is true of paragraphs (a) and (c) — paragraph (c) requires intent to deprive the pledgee or other superior possessor permanently of possession. Under paragraph (b) the mental element is instead intent to convert, and under paragraph (d) it is intent to defraud. The first question in any theft case is which paragraph the State actually charged.
How “value” is defined — and why it is litigable
Because value drives the penalty, the definition is worth reading closely. Under § 943.20 (2) (d), “value” means the market value at the time of the theft or the cost to the victim of replacing the property within a reasonable time after the theft, whichever is less. If the accused gave consideration for the property, or had a legal interest in it, the amount of that consideration or the value of that interest is deducted from the total.
Two practical consequences follow. First, a complainant’s claimed figure is a claim, not a finding; the lesser of market value and replacement cost is the measure, and nothing obliges the court to accept the higher number. Second, a disputed valuation that moves the figure across a threshold moves the whole case — from felony to misdemeanor, or down a felony class. That is often the most productive work available in a theft defense.
The penalty ladder
Section 943.20 (3) sets the classification by value, and §§ 939.50 and 939.51 supply the maximum penalties for each class:
- $2,500 or less — Class A misdemeanor: a fine not to exceed $10,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 9 months, or both.
- More than $2,500 but not more than $5,000 — Class I felony: a fine not to exceed $10,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 3 years and 6 months, or both.
- More than $5,000 but not more than $10,000 — Class H felony: a fine not to exceed $10,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 6 years, or both.
- More than $10,000 but not more than $100,000 — Class G felony: a fine not to exceed $25,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 10 years, or both.
- More than $100,000 — Class F felony: a fine not to exceed $25,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 12 years and 6 months, or both.
Those figures are maximums, not expected outcomes, and a felony term in Wisconsin is served as a bifurcated sentence — a period of initial confinement followed by a period of extended supervision. Our article on how sentencing works in Wisconsin explains how that division is made.
Section 943.20 was last amended by 2025 Wis. Act 106. Dollar thresholds in this area do get revised, so a figure quoted from an older article — or from a memory of how the law read a few years ago — should not be relied on.
What makes a theft a felony regardless of value
This is the part that catches people. Under § 943.20 (3) (d), a theft is a Class H felony whatever the property was worth if any of the following is true:
- the property is a firearm;
- the property is a domestic animal;
- the property is taken from a patient or resident of a facility or program under § 940.295 (2), or from an “individual at risk” — which § 943.20 (2) (ae) defines to include both elder adults at risk and adults at risk;
- the property is taken from a building destroyed or left unoccupied because of physical disaster, riot, bombing, or the proximity of battle, or taken after such an event necessitated its removal from a building.
Separately, under § 943.20 (3) (e), theft from the person of another or from a corpse is a Class G felony — up to 10 years. A purse taken from a hand is not, in the eyes of the statute, the same offense as the same purse taken from an unattended chair.
And under § 943.20 (3g), a single prior conviction changes the picture completely. A person charged with misdemeanor theft may be charged with and convicted of a Class I felony if he or she has one or more prior convictions under § 943.20 (3) (a) to (cm) or under the retail-theft provisions of § 943.50 (4) (a) to (c). A person charged with a felony theft may be convicted of a felony one classification higher on the same showing. One old shoplifting conviction can therefore turn a new misdemeanor into a felony.
Finally, § 943.20 (5) permits aggregation: for charging and penalty purposes, the value of property from multiple violations committed in the same prosecutorial unit by the same person during a course of conduct may be added together. Five $600 thefts are not necessarily five misdemeanors.
Retail theft is a different statute, and it is harsher at the bottom
Shoplifting is charged under § 943.50, not § 943.20, and it carries its own schedule under § 943.50 (4). The misdemeanor ceiling is $500, not $2,500:
- $500 or less — Class A misdemeanor.
- More than $500 but not more than $5,000 — Class I felony.
- More than $5,000 but not more than $10,000 — Class H felony.
- More than $10,000 — Class G felony.
The same repeater mechanism appears at § 943.50 (4g), and it cross-counts with ordinary theft in both directions. The same aggregation rule appears at § 943.50 (6). And § 943.50 (4m) makes a violation a Class I felony even under $500 where the person agreed or combined with another to commit it and intended to sell the merchandise over the internet — the organized-resale provision.
The civil demand letter: what it can and cannot ask for
A retail-theft case usually produces two pieces of mail: a criminal citation or summons, and a civil demand from the retailer. The civil claim is real, and it is authorized by § 943.51 — but it is also capped, which is not what the demand letters tend to convey.
Under § 943.51 (1), a person injured by a violation of § 943.50 may recover the retail value of the merchandise unless it is returned undamaged and unused (and only if the claimant exercised due diligence in demanding its return), plus any actual damages not covered by that. Section 943.51 (2) then permits, where the claimant prevails, exemplary damages of not more than three times the amount under sub. (1) — two times where the action is against a minor or against the custodial parent of a minor — with no additional proof required, plus all actual costs of the action including reasonable attorney fees.
Then comes the limit. Under § 943.51 (3), the total amount awarded for exemplary damages and reasonable attorney fees may not exceed $500 for each violation; under sub. (3m) that total is capped at $300 where the action is against a minor or a custodial parent. The merchandise value and actual damages sit outside that cap; the punitive-and-fees component does not.
A civil demand is also a separate proceeding from the prosecution. Paying it does not resolve the criminal case, and ignoring it does not improve the criminal case. Both should be handled with the other one in view.
Where the defenses actually are
Theft defenses tend to cluster in four places, and they are more often evidentiary than dramatic.
- Intent. Whichever paragraph is charged, the mental element must be proved. Walking out with unpaid merchandise is consistent with theft and also consistent with distraction, a disputed transaction, or a misunderstanding about what was already paid for. Intent is proved by inference, and inferences are contestable.
- Consent and ownership. Section 943.20 (2) (c) includes co-owned and partnership property within “property of another,” so a genuine ownership dispute does not automatically defeat the charge — but it frequently defeats the inference of criminal intent, particularly in cases arising out of a failed business or a separating household.
- Value. See above. The threshold fights are where the leverage is.
- The charging decision itself. Whether aggregation under sub. (5) was proper, whether a prior conviction actually qualifies under sub. (3g), whether the alleged victim was an “individual at risk” within the statutory definition — each is a question of law that can move the case down a class or out of felony territory entirely.
And where a conviction looks likely, the question becomes what form it takes. A deferred prosecution agreement can keep a conviction off the record altogether in the right case, and restitution — which in a theft case is often the complainant’s real objective — is itself a contested figure with a statutory procedure behind it.
Before you talk to anyone
Theft cases are built out of statements: to loss-prevention staff, to police at the scene, to an employer conducting an internal investigation. Those statements arrive in the file and they do not leave it. Our article on what to do if you are arrested in Wisconsin and the longer piece on your rights during a stop, a search, and questioning cover the ground. Both are worth reading before an interview, not after one.
Attorney Christopher Carson defends theft and retail-theft charges throughout Waukesha and Milwaukee counties. See our criminal defense practice, schedule a consultation, or call (262) 860-8932.
Related reading
- Felony vs. misdemeanor in Wisconsin
- How sentencing works in Wisconsin
- Restitution: how the amount is set, and what happens if you cannot pay
About the author. Christopher S. Carson, J.D., M.A., has practiced law in Milwaukee for 34 years. He holds an M.A. in International Security Studies from Georgetown University, where he was the Bradley Fellow, was formerly with the American Enterprise Institute, and is a contributing editor at the New English Review. Read the full biography.
More on this: Criminal defense practice at Carson Law Office · Schedule a free consultation · (262) 860-8932
Related reading: Arrested in Wisconsin? Your Rights During a Stop, a Search, and Questioning · Charged With Drug Possession in Wisconsin? What You’re Actually Facing · What Is a Deferred Prosecution Agreement in Wisconsin — and Could It Keep a Conviction Off Your Record?
This article is general information about Wisconsin law, not legal advice about your situation, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.