Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 946 — CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT AND ITS ADMINISTRATION
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 946.85 (2026)

Continuing criminal enterprise

✓ laws through the 2025-26 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
946.85946.85 Continuing criminal enterprise.
946.85(1)(1) Any person who engages in a continuing criminal enterprise is guilty of a Class E felony.
Down
Up
946.85(2)(2) In this section a person is considered to be engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise, if he or she engages in a prohibited activity under s. 946.83, and:
946.85(2)(a)(a) The activity is undertaken by the person in concert with 5 or more other persons, each of whom acted with intent to commit a crime and with respect to whom the person occupies a supervisory position; and
946.85(2)(b)(b) The person obtains gross income or resources in excess of $25,000 from the activity.
946.85 HistoryHistory: 1981 c. 280; 1997 a. 283; 2001 a. 109.
946.85 AnnotationThere are three separate offenses chargeable under this section, each requiring proof of a fact the others do not. Prosecution of continuing criminal enterprise violations and the predicate offenses does not violate double jeopardy. State v. Evers, 163 Wis. 2d 725, 472 N.W.2d 828 (Ct. App. 1991).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1991–1995 · leading case: State v. Evers, 472 N.W.2d 828 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Evers, 472 N.W.2d 828 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 5× “He claims three errors on appeal: First, that the three charges of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of sec. 946.85, Stats., are multiplicitous; second, that imposition of consecutive sentences for continuing criminal enterprise offenses and predicate…”
Mgmt. Comput. Servs., Inc. v. Hawkins, Ash, Baptie & Co., 539 N.W.2d 111 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “83 or § 946.85 has a cause of action for twice the actual damages sustained, attorney fees and costs reasonably incurred and, when appropriate, punitive damages.”
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.