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

Wash. Rev. Code § 21.20.400 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Any person who willfully violates any provision of this chapter except RCW 21.20.350, or who willfully violates any rule or order under this chapter, or who willfully violates RCW 21.20.350 knowing the statement made to be false or misleading in any material respect, is guilty of a class B felony punishable under RCW 9A.20.021(1)(b). However, a person may not be imprisoned for the violation of any rule or order if that person proves that he or she had no knowledge of the rule or order.
(2) Any person who knowingly alters, destroys, shreds, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding under this chapter, is guilty of a class B felony punishable under RCW 9A.20.021(1)(b) or punishable by a fine of not more than five hundred thousand dollars, or both. The fines paid under this subsection shall be deposited into the securities prosecution fund.
(3) No indictment or information may be returned under this chapter more than (a) five years after the violation, or (b) three years after the actual discovery of the violation, whichever date of limitation is later.
[ 2016 c 61 s 13. Prior: 2003 c 288 s 3; 2003 c 53 s 163; 1979 ex.s. c 68 s 28; 1965 c 17 s 5; 1959 c 282 s 40.]

Notes:

Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1970–2014 · leading case: Kittilson v. Ford, 595 P.2d 944 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kittilson v. Ford, 595 P.2d 944 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 4× “See RCW 21.20.400. [8] The version of the securities act in effect at the time of this lawsuit also provided for a private cause of action under the act for fraud or misrepresentation.”
State v. Cox, 566 P.2d 935 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 3× “Furthermore, the first portion of RCW 21.20.400 is essentially the same as the first portion *902 of the federal statute.”
State v. Eilts, 596 P.2d 1050 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “RCW 21.20.400 provides criminal penalties for such violations.”
State v. Reeder, 330 P.3d 786 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “RCW 21.20.400(3). RCW 9A.04.080(l)(h). State v.”
State v. Hynds, 529 P.2d 829 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 6× “All factors being considered, we are satisfied that the evidence relating to the Twin Falls "market" was relevant and that the circumstances presented were sufficient to support a jury finding of the requisite knowledge and specific intent to defraud.”
State v. Argo, 915 P.2d 1103 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “RCW 21.20.400 provides in pertinent part that "[n]o indictment or information may be returned under this *567 chapter more than five years after the alleged violation.”
Ludwig v. Mut. Real Est. Investors, 567 P.2d 658 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977). “695 (1970).8 Our securities act contains equivalent sections providing for administrative (RCW 21.”
State v. Markham, 697 P.2d 263 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “7 RCW 21.20.400 provides: "Any person who wilfully violates any provision of this chapter except RCW 21.”
State v. Shannahan, 849 P.2d 1239 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “Like Shannahan, the defendant in Stephan argued restitution was not authorized for a violation of the securities act because RCW 21.20.400 only lists imprisonment and/or a fine as penalties for securities fraud and because the securities act is not mentioned in RCW Title 9A.”
Shermer v. Baker, 472 P.2d 589 (Wash. Ct. App. 1970). “RCW 21.20.400. 2 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5: “It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange, “ (a) To employ any device, scheme, or…”
State v. Williams, 563 P.2d 1270 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977). “On appeal, defendant contends that his conviction was improper because the patent and royalty interests sold by defendant are not securities within the meaning of the act.”
State v. Kelley, 889 P.2d 940 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “040 on RCW 21.20.400 in his appeal. This court is therefore without guidance on his view of the statute.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 21.20.400(3) — 3 cases
State v. Reeder, 330 P.3d 786 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “RCW 21.20.400(3). RCW 9A.04.080(l)(h). State v.”
State Of Washington v. Michael Reeder (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
State Of Washington, Res/cross-app. v. Laurance D. Anthone, App/cross-res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
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.