Wisconsin Assembly Bill AB666

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 11/19/25
• Refer: 11/19/25
• Report Pass: 1/14/26
• Refer: 1/14/26
• Engrossed: 1/20/26
• Refer: 1/23/26
• Enrolled: 2/20/26
• Chaptered: 3/20/26
• Passed: 3/20/26

Caption

An Act to amend 177.1104, 177.1204 (title) and 177.1205; to create 177.1201 (4) and 177.12045 of the statutes; Relating to: fraudulent claims for unclaimed property and providing a penalty. (FE)

Summary

AB666 amends Wisconsin’s unclaimed property law to address fraudulent claims made against property held by the state administrator. The bill creates a new penalty section for people who file claims for another person’s property without consent and with the intent to deprive the owner of that property. It also adds a separate penalty for certain claims filed under existing unclaimed-property agreement rules when the required agreement copy does not meet statutory requirements. Under the bill, a fraudulent claimant may face a civil penalty equal to the full value of the property, and in some cases an additional fixed penalty of $1,000 or $2,500 depending on the property’s value. The same conduct is also made a Class I felony, with the possibility of prosecution costs. The bill authorizes the attorney general, at the administrator’s request, to assist or represent the state in prosecutions under the new section, and it requires the administrator to publicly post information about certain assessed penalties on its website for at least 12 months.

Impact

The bill changes chapters governing unclaimed property by expanding enforcement tools against fraudulent claims and by clarifying that existing penalty provisions apply to amounts determined under the chapter. It creates new civil and criminal liability for unauthorized claims to another person’s property, adds a public reporting requirement for certain penalty assessments, and allows the administrator to waive penalties in whole or in part. Affected parties include unclaimed property claimants, third-party recovery firms or agents, the state administrator, district attorneys, and the attorney general.

Sentiment

The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of debate or partisan division in the materials provided. Based on the bill’s text, the measure appears to have been framed as an anti-fraud enforcement bill aimed at protecting rightful owners and the integrity of the unclaimed property system. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the provided context suggests the bill moved without documented controversy in this dataset.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the bill’s treatment of third-party claim-filing practices, especially the added penalties for claims filed under agreement-based arrangements that do not comply with statutory requirements. Those provisions could affect professional claim finders, asset recovery businesses, and attorneys who assist claimants. Another possible issue is the public posting of names and addresses of penalized persons, which raises reputational and privacy concerns, while supporters would likely view it as a deterrent to fraud and noncompliance.