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

Wash. Rev. Code § 21.20.390 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Whenever it appears to the director that any person has engaged or is about to engage in any act or practice constituting a violation of any provision of this chapter or any rule or order hereunder, the director may in his or her discretion:
(1) Issue an order directing the person to cease and desist from continuing the act or practice and to take appropriate affirmative action within a reasonable period of time, as prescribed by the director, to correct conditions resulting from the act or practice including, without limitation, a requirement to provide restitution. Reasonable notice of and opportunity for a hearing shall be given. The director may issue a summary order pending the hearing which shall remain in effect until ten days after the hearing is held and which shall become final if the person to whom notice is addressed does not request a hearing within twenty days after the receipt of notice; or
(2) The director may without issuing a cease and desist order, bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin any such acts or practices and to enforce compliance with this chapter or any rule or order adopted under this chapter. The court may grant such ancillary relief, including a civil penalty, restitution, and disgorgement, as it deems appropriate. Upon a proper showing a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or writ of mandamus shall be granted and a receiver or conservator may be appointed for the defendant or the defendant's assets. The director may not be required to post a bond. If the director prevails, the director shall be entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee to be fixed by the court.
(3) Whenever it appears to the director that any person who has received a permit to issue, sell, or otherwise dispose of securities under this chapter, whether current or otherwise, has become insolvent, the director may petition a court of competent jurisdiction to appoint a receiver or conservator for the defendant or the defendant's assets. The director may not be required to post a bond.
(4) The director may bring an action for restitution or damages on behalf of the persons injured by a violation of this chapter, if the court finds that private civil action would be so burdensome or expensive as to be impractical.
(5) In any action under this section, the director may charge the costs, fees, and other expenses incurred by the director in the conduct of any administrative investigation, hearing, or court proceeding against any person found to be in violation of any provision of this section or any rule or order adopted under this section.
(6) In any action under subsection (1) of this section, the director may enter an order requiring an accounting, restitution, and disgorgement, including interest at the legal rate under RCW 4.56.110. The director may by rule or order provide for payments to investors, interest rates, periods of accrual, and other matters the director deems appropriate to implement this subsection.
[ 2016 c 61 s 12; 2003 c 288 s 5; 1995 c 46 s 7; 1994 c 256 s 23; 1981 c 272 s 8; 1979 ex.s. c 68 s 27; 1975 1st ex.s. c 84 s 23; 1974 ex.s. c 77 s 10; 1959 c 282 s 39.]

Notes:

Findings—Construction—1994 c 256: See RCW 43.320.007.
Effective date—1974 ex.s. c 77: See note following RCW 21.20.040.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1977–2019 · leading case: State v. Oxborrow, 723 P.2d 1123 (Wash. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Oxborrow, 723 P.2d 1123 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 2× “020(1)(a), and to willful violation of a cease and desist order concerning the sale of securities, RCW 21.20.390, by defrauding approximately 51 investors of over $1 million subsequent to July 1, 1984.”
Fed. Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC, 449 P.3d 1019 (Wash. 2019). “See RCW 21.20.390,.395. Conclusion The majority overturns settled law requiring private plaintiffs to plead and prove reliance in state securities fraud claims.”
Ludwig v. Mut. Real Est. Investors, 567 P.2d 658 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977). “) Uniform Securities Act § 101, Commissioners Notes, 7 U.L.A. 695 (1970).”
Victor & Zinaida Bosserdt v. B. David Thomas (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “The Statement of Charges nowhere mentions Thomas, and its only reference to Verd's "agents" is as follows: Pursuant to RCW 21.20.390 and based on the above Tentative Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Securities Administrator intends to order that Respondents, King…”
State v. Stephan, 671 P.2d 780 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). “RCW 21.20.390 begins: Whenever it appears to the director that any person has engaged or is about to engage in any act or practice constituting a violation of any provision of this chapter or any rule or order hereunder, the director may in his or her discretion: (1) Issue an…”
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.