Wash. Rev. Code » Title 21 · Chapter 21.20
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 21.20.140 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
It is unlawful for any person to offer or sell any security in this state unless: (1) The security is registered by coordination or qualification under this chapter; (2) the security or transaction is exempted under RCW 21.20.310, 21.20.320, or 21.20.880; or (3) the security is a federal covered security, and, if required, the filing is made and a fee is paid in accordance with RCW 21.20.327.
[ 2016 c 61 s 4; 1998 c 15 s 11; 1975 1st ex.s. c 84 s 10; 1959 c 282 s 14.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Hoffer v. State, 755 P.2d 781 (Wash. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hoffer v. State, 755 P.2d 781 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 2× “010 or RCW 21.20.140 through 21.20.230. At issue in the present case is RCW 21.”
Kittilson v. Ford, 595 P.2d 944 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 4× “165 read: "(1) Any person, who offers or sells a security in violation of any provisions of RCW 21.20.140 through 21.20.220 and 21.20.”
Cellular Eng'g, Ltd. v. O'Neill, 820 P.2d 941 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 3× “Those securities were not registered, in violation of RCW 21.20.140. Because Cellular's application purchase agreements with its customers were made in violation of the act's registration requirement, Cellular may not base any suit upon its agreement with O'Neill.”
McClellan v. Sundholm, 574 P.2d 371 (Wash. 1978). · cites it 3× “Sale of an unregistered security is unlawful under RCW 21.20.140 and subjects the seller to civil liabilities under RCW 21.”
State v. Mahmood, 724 P.2d 1021 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “The Court of Appeals dismissed the argument that negotiable instruments law gave Dorman, as payee, legal ownership of the funds, stating that this would lead to an "absurd result that a trustee who receives checks cannot, under negotiable instruments law, embezzle the funds,…”
Go2net, Inc. v. FreeYellow.com, Inc., 143 P.3d 590 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 2× “¶13 In sum, Midwest and Logan would be analogous to the present case only if Go2Net’s basis for rescinding its purchase of FreeYellow had been the Act’s registration requirement, RCW 21.20.140, rather than its antifraud provision, RCW 21.”
Chanana's Corp. v. Gilmore, 539 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (W.D. Wash. 2003). · cites it 10× “140, securities sales are unlawful unless the securities are (1) registered, (2) exempt under state law, or (3) covered securities and a Form D has been filed and the required fees paid within fifteen days of the sale.”
Merrick v. Peterson, 606 P.2d 700 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 3× “As a defense and basis for counterclaim, defendants argued that Walker violated RCW 21.20.140 which makes in unlawful to sell unregistered securities.”
Garretson v. Red-Co, Inc., 516 P.2d 1039 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 3× “This failure to register was a violation of RCW 21.20.140 and rendered Red-Co, together with its “controlling persons,” liable in damages to the purchaser (plaintiff).”
Dunlap v. Wild, 591 P.2d 834 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). “430(1) stated in pertinent part: "Any person, who offers or sells a security in violation of any provisions of RCW 21.20.140 through 21.20.220 and 21.20.”
State v. Eilts, 596 P.2d 1050 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). “At the commencement of trial in July 1977, the State moved to amend its information to add two counts charging violations of RCW 21.20.140, which prohibits the sale of unregistered securities.”
Ludwig v. Mut. Real Est. Investors, 567 P.2d 658 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977). “(1) Any person, who offers or sells a security in violation of any provisions of RCW 21.20.140 through 21.20.220 and 21.20.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 21.20.140(3) — 1 case
Chanana's Corp. v. Gilmore, 539 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (W.D. Wash. 2003). “140, securities sales are unlawful unless the securities are (1) registered, (2) exempt under state law, or (3) covered securities and a Form D has been filed and the required fees paid within fifteen days of the sale.”
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.