Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 943.39 (2026)
Fraudulent writings
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
943.39943.39 Fraudulent writings. Whoever, with intent to injure or defraud, does any of the following is guilty of a Class H felony:
943.39(1)(1) Being a director, officer, manager, agent or employee of any corporation or limited liability company falsifies any record, account or other document belonging to that corporation or limited liability company by alteration, false entry or omission, or makes, circulates or publishes any written statement regarding the corporation or limited liability company which he or she knows is false; or
943.39(2)(2) By means of deceit obtains a signature to a writing which is the subject of forgery under s. 943.38 (1); or
943.39(3)(3) Makes a false written statement with knowledge that it is false and with intent that it shall ultimately appear to have been signed under oath.
943.39 AnnotationSub. (2) does not require proof of forgery. State v. Weister, 125 Wis. 2d 54, 370 N.W.2d 278 (Ct. App. 1985).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2023 · leading case: State v. Norman, 2003 WI 72 (Wis. 2003).
State v. Norman, 2003 WI 72 (Wis. 2003). “Norman, was charged with six counts of falsifying corporate *513 documents, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 943.39 (1) (1999-2000), 2 and four counts of theft, in violation of Wis.”
Strozinsky v. Sch. Dist. of Brown Deer, 2000 WI 97 (Wis. 2000). “Strozinsky filed a wrongful *26 discharge claim, contending that the District had forced her to resign because of her efforts to comply with the public policy reflected in Wis. Stat. § 943.39 2 and federal tax laws.”
State v. Bond, 407 N.W.2d 277 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “1 Counts one and three alleged fraudulent writings in violation of sec. 943.39(1), Stats. Count two alleged theft by fraud in violation of sec.”
State v. Jacobsen, 2014 WI App 13 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “See Wis. Stat. § 943.39 (1). The complaint alleged that, on or about March 15, 2011, Jacobsen, "being an employee of a corporation, with intent to defraud, did falsify any record belonging to that corporation[.”
State v. O'NEIL, 416 N.W.2d 77 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “20(l)(d), and fraudulent writings, sec. 943.39(1), Stats. At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, the trial court dismissed the theft by fraud charge, concluding that sec.”
Karen Widenski v. ProHealth Care, Inc. (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§§ 943.39 and 943.395 (2019-20).1 ProHealth cross-appeals, asserting the circuit court erred by refusing to grant its summary judgment motion and permitting the case to proceed to trial.”
State v. Weister, 370 N.W.2d 278 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). “The state contends that sec. 943.39(2), Stats., only requires that the writing be the kind that, if falsely made, could be the subject of a forgery prosecution under sec.”
Faith A. Lowell v. Patricia Hammarback (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “¶18 First, Faith Ann argues the court erred by failing to conclude Patricia and counsel for the estate committed a felony by submitting a fraudulent inventory 7 No.”
— Wis. Stat. § 943.39(1) — 5 cases
Strozinsky v. Sch. Dist. of Brown Deer, 2000 WI 97 (Wis. 2000). “Strozinsky filed a wrongful *26 discharge claim, contending that the District had forced her to resign because of her efforts to comply with the public policy reflected in Wis. Stat. § 943.39 2 and federal tax laws.”
State v. Norman, 2003 WI 72 (Wis. 2003). “Norman, was charged with six counts of falsifying corporate *513 documents, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 943.39 (1) (1999-2000), 2 and four counts of theft, in violation of Wis.”
State v. Bond, 407 N.W.2d 277 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “1 Counts one and three alleged fraudulent writings in violation of sec. 943.39(1), Stats. Count two alleged theft by fraud in violation of sec.”
State v. O'NEIL, 416 N.W.2d 77 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “20(l)(d), and fraudulent writings, sec. 943.39(1), Stats. At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, the trial court dismissed the theft by fraud charge, concluding that sec.”
Karen Widenski v. ProHealth Care, Inc. (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§§ 943.39 and 943.395 (2019-20).1 ProHealth cross-appeals, asserting the circuit court erred by refusing to grant its summary judgment motion and permitting the case to proceed to trial.”
— Wis. Stat. § 943.39(2) — 1 case
State v. Weister, 370 N.W.2d 278 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). “The state contends that sec. 943.39(2), Stats., only requires that the writing be the kind that, if falsely made, could be the subject of a forgery prosecution under sec.”
— Wis. Stat. § 943.39(3) — 1 case
Faith A. Lowell v. Patricia Hammarback (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “¶18 First, Faith Ann argues the court erred by failing to conclude Patricia and counsel for the estate committed a felony by submitting a fraudulent inventory 7 No.”
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.