AB19 extends Wisconsin’s enhanced-protection framework that existed for ‘‘elder persons’’ to include ‘‘adults at risk’’ by importing the statutory definition in s. 55.01(1e) throughout multiple criminal and civil-procedural provisions. The bill upgrades penalties for intentional and reckless harm against these victims, adjusts sexual-assault and battery statutes to cover adults at risk, and changes the knowledge standard: enhanced penalties apply to elder victims regardless of a defendant’s knowledge of age, but apply to adults at risk only if the defendant actually knew the victim’s status.
Operationally, AB19 gives prosecutors a new tool to preserve assets for restitution: it authorizes courts to freeze a defendant’s funds, assets, or property up to 100% of the alleged loss in cases of financial exploitation of an elder or an adult at risk, permits ex parte hearings where evidence rules do not apply, and binds financial institutions and third parties to the freeze orders. The bill also updates restraining-order procedures to let elder and adult-at-risk petitioners attend hearings remotely.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill expands statutory coverage to ‘‘adult at risk’’ across criminal penalty enhancements, battery and sexual-assault statutes, and restraining-order statutes; raises felony classifications for causing bodily harm to these victims; and authorizes pretrial freezing of defendant assets in financial-exploitation cases up to the alleged loss amount. It imports the ‘‘adult at risk’’ definition from s.55.01(1e).
Who It Affects
Prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges handling elder-abuse and financial-exploitation cases; financial institutions and third parties who hold allegedly tainted assets; guardians, care facilities, and victim advocates who work with adults at risk; and courts administering restraining-order hearings or asset-freeze petitions.
Why It Matters
It creates substantive criminal-law protections and procedural remedies targeted at vulnerable adults while changing evidentiary and pretrial dynamics: ex parte, non‑evidentiary asset freezes and a bifurcated knowledge rule mean different proof burdens and due‑process tradeoffs than current practice. Compliance officers at financial institutions and counsel for defendants will see immediate operational impacts.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB19 systematically weaves the term “adult at risk” into statutes that previously referred only to “elder persons.” Instead of creating a stand‑alone statute, it amends titles, definitions, and operative provisions across criminal and civil procedure chapters so that the new label carries the same kinds of protections and processes already available to elders — but with a notable legal wrinkle: several enhancements apply to adults at risk only if the defendant actually knew the victim’s status.
On criminal penalties, the bill increases the seriousness of battery-type offenses against elders and adults at risk by reclassifying intentional and reckless conduct into higher felony levels. It sets out specific felony grades for intentional great bodily harm, intentional bodily harm, and reckless variants; these reclassifications change exposure at sentencing and therefore the stakes for plea bargaining and trial strategy.For crimes of financial exploitation, AB19 expands an existing mechanism that allows a prosecutor to petition a court to freeze a defendant’s assets when the victim is an elder or an adult at risk and the alleged loss exceeds $2,500.
The statute lets the court freeze up to 100% of the alleged loss, allow the hearing to occur ex parte, and operate without application of the rules of evidence. Freeze orders can bar sale, gifting, transfer, or wasting of property belonging to the victim and are binding on financial institutions and third parties holding the assets.On civil-procedure access, the bill requires courts to permit elder and adult-at-risk petitioners to participate in protective-order hearings by telephone or live audiovisual means.
The text also renames several statutory titles and cross‑references to ensure consistency, and inserts the adult-at-risk definition by reference to s.55.01(1e). Together, these changes raise both protective capacity for vulnerable adults and procedural complexity for courts, defense counsel, and third-party custodians of assets.
The Five Things You Need to Know
939.623 now covers “adult at risk” and allows sentencing enhancements for crimes committed against them, but the enhancement applies only when the defendant had actual knowledge the victim was an adult at risk.
940.66 reclassifies battery against an elder person or an adult at risk into higher felony grades: intentional great bodily harm (Class C), intentional bodily harm (Class H), and intentional conduct likely to produce great bodily harm (Class F); reckless variants are elevated to Class E, I, and H respectively.
971.109 authorizes a prosecutor to seek a court order freezing a defendant’s funds, assets, or property up to 100% of the alleged loss in financial-exploitation cases against an elder or adult at risk when the taking exceeds $2,500.
The asset-freeze hearing under 971.109 may be held ex parte and the statute expressly disapplies the rules of evidence for that hearing; orders bind financial institutions (per s.943.80(2)) and third parties in possession of the property.
Multiple protective-order provisions (e.g.
813.12, 813.123, 813.125) now require courts to allow elder or adult-at-risk petitioners to attend hearings by telephone or live audiovisual means, removing an in-person access barrier.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Incorporates ‘adult at risk’ definition into protective-order statutes
These provisions import the definition of “adult at risk” from s.55.01(1e) into the protective-order framework. Practically, that makes adults who meet the statutory definition eligible for the same remote‑participation accommodations and petitioner status that elder persons have, and it ensures cross‑referencing across restraining‑order statutes so practitioners can treat the group consistently when filing or defending petitions.
Remote participation for elder and adult‑at‑risk petitioners
The amended language obligates courts to permit elder persons or adults at risk to participate in hearings by telephone or live audiovisual means. For court administrators, that creates an accessibility requirement; for litigators, it changes how testimony and immediate credibility assessments may play out, especially when a petitioner cannot appear in person. Courts will need to ensure secure, reliable remote connections and protocols for exhibits or interpreter access.
Sentencing enhancement statute extended and split knowledge rule
Section 939.623 — Wisconsin’s increased‑penalty provision — is retitled to include adults at risk and is modified so the statute’s reach depends on the victim type. For elder victims, the enhancement applies irrespective of a defendant’s knowledge of age. For adults at risk, the enhancement applies only where the defendant actually knew the victim’s status. This bifurcation shifts the proof burden and will influence charging decisions: prosecutors must now evaluate admissible evidence of a defendant’s knowledge before seeking enhanced sentencing under this section.
Battery to elder person or adult at risk: reclassified offenses and a new recklessness definition
AB19 amends battery provisions to treat intentional and reckless harm to elder persons and adults at risk as higher‑grade felonies (with explicit Class C/F/H for intentional harms and Class E/I/H for reckless harms). The bill also inserts a bespoke definition of “recklessly” for this section, describing conduct that creates an unreasonable risk and demonstrates a conscious disregard for the safety of the elder person. That definition is geared to prosecution of reckless conduct but raises drafting and interpretive questions because it references “elder person” while the section title includes adults at risk.
Sexual assault statutes cover adults at risk when defendant knew their status
The bill amends the sexual‑assault offense to add adults at risk as a protected class, but explicitly confines application to situations where the defendant had actual knowledge the victim was an adult at risk. That differs from elder protections and will require prosecutors to develop proof of the defendant’s awareness in sexual‑assault prosecutions before seeking enhanced treatment.
Asset-freeze procedure for financial exploitation of elders or adults at risk
The statute now imports the adult‑at‑risk definition and calibrates the asset‑freeze remedy: if the alleged taking exceeds $2,500 and the victim is an elder or adult at risk, a prosecutor may petition to freeze assets up to the alleged value for restitution purposes. The hearing may be ex parte, the rules of evidence do not apply, and orders must prohibit transfer/gifting/sale and are binding on financial institutions and third parties. Practically, this places immediate obligations on banks and custodians to honor freezes and creates a fast‑moving pretrial mechanism to preserve restitution funds.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Elder persons and adults at risk — receive expanded statutory protections, enhanced sentencing for harms, access to remote participation in protective‑order proceedings, and a stronger mechanism to preserve assets for restitution.
- Prosecuting attorneys — gain a lower‑threshold, ex parte tool to preserve assets for restitution and expanded statutory bases to seek enhanced charges against perpetrators of elder/adult‑at‑risk abuse.
- Victims’ families and victim‑advocate organizations — benefit from improved ability to secure immediate freezes of allegedly tainted assets and from procedural accommodations that reduce travel and stress for vulnerable petitioners.
Who Bears the Cost
- Defendants and defense counsel — face higher felony exposure, a new requirement to overcome a prosecutor’s ex parte freeze petition to regain access to assets, and the evidentiary burden of disproving alleged knowledge of a victim’s ‘adult at risk’ status.
- Financial institutions and third‑party custodians — must implement and comply with binding freeze orders that may arrive ex parte and cover up to 100% of alleged losses, increasing operational and legal review burdens and potential litigation risk for wrongful freezes.
- Courts and court administrators — absorb workload to handle ex parte freeze petitions, enforce third‑party restraints, and provide reliable remote hearing infrastructure and procedures for vulnerable petitioners; unpaid administrative burdens may arise if no appropriations accompany the changes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing stronger, faster protections and restitution tools for vulnerable victims against defendants’ due‑process rights and the operational burdens placed on courts and third parties: the bill empowers immediate intervention (ex parte asset freezes and higher felony classifications) but does so with a knowledge bifurcation and procedural shortcuts that may complicate proof, increase litigation over interpretation, and constrain a defendant’s access to resources to mount a defense.
AB19 packs several consequential changes into existing statutory frameworks but leaves important implementation questions unresolved. First, the bifurcated knowledge standard — no knowledge required for elder victims but actual knowledge required for adults at risk — creates a predictable evidentiary hurdle for prosecutors in many adult‑at‑risk cases.
Proof of a defendant’s subjective knowledge will often depend on circumstantial indicators (statements, dependency relationships, caregiving context), which may not be readily provable at charging time and could limit use of the enhanced penalties in practice.
Second, the rewritten “recklessly” definition in the battery provision references the safety of the ‘‘elder person’’ even as the statute applies to adults at risk. That drafting inconsistency is likely to spawn litigation over statutory interpretation: courts must decide whether the tailored recklessness standard applies equally to adults at risk or whether a different mental‑state inquiry governs.
Third, the asset‑freeze mechanism raises due‑process concerns and practical burdens: ex parte freezes without rules‑of‑evidence protections, and freezes up to 100% of the alleged loss, can strip defendants of funds needed to secure counsel or rebut allegations. Financial institutions will face immediate compliance pressure and possible liability exposure for freezing or unfreezing assets under ambiguous timelines or insufficient notice.
Finally, while remote participation is an accessibility improvement, the bill does not specify standards for authentication, handling exhibits, or accommodations for interpreters and guardianship conflicts. Courts will need local procedures to operationalize remote testimony for vulnerable adults without compromising fairness or evidentiary integrity.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.