Wash. Rev. Code » Title 42 · Chapter 42.20
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 42.20.070 (2026)

Misappropriation and falsification of accounts by public officer

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Every public officer, and every other person receiving money on behalf or for or on account of the people of the state or of any department of the state government or of any bureau or fund created by law in which the people are directly or indirectly interested, or for or on account of any county, city, town, or any school, diking, drainage, or irrigation district, who:
(1) Appropriates to his or her own use or the use of any person not entitled thereto, without authority of law, any money so received by him or her as such officer or otherwise; or
(2) Knowingly keeps any false account, or makes any false entry or erasure in any account, of or relating to any money so received by him or her; or
(3) Fraudulently alters, falsifies, conceals, destroys, or obliterates any such account; or
(4) Willfully omits or refuses to pay over to the state, its officer or agent authorized by law to receive the same, or to such county, city, town, or such school, diking, drainage, or irrigation district or to the proper officer or authority empowered to demand and receive the same, any money received by him or her as such officer when it is a duty imposed upon him or her by law to pay over and account for the same,
is guilty of a class B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in a state correctional facility for not more than fifteen years.
[ 2003 c 53 s 219; 1992 c 7 s 37; 1909 c 249 s 317; RRS s 2569. Prior: Code 1881 s 890; 1873 p 202 s 92; 1854 p 91 s 83.]

Notes:

Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1978–2024 · leading case: State v. Funkhouser, 637 P.2d 974 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Funkhouser, 637 P.2d 974 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 18× “Defendant thus contends his conviction must be reversed and all charges against him must be dismissed. We disagree.”
In re the Recall of Washam, 171 Wash. 2d 503 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 2× ““Every officer or other person mentioned in RCW 42.20.070, who shall wilfully disobey any provision of law regulating his official conduct in cases other than those specified in said section, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.”
In Re Recall of Washam, 257 P.3d 513 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 2× “[12] "Every officer or other person mentioned in RCW 42.20.070, who shall wilfully disobey any provision of law regulating his official conduct in cases other than those specified in said section, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.”
State v. McNeil, 582 P.2d 524 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “" [3] RCW 42.20.070 provides in pertinent part: "Every public officer .”
State v. Erickson, 587 P.2d 613 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). “These audit results prompted the State to file four new charges of account falsification by a public official, RCW 42.20.070. After observing that both CrR 4.”
Orozco v. Yakima Sheriff's Off. (E.D. Wash. 2024). · cites it 4× “In addition, a public servant can be found 15 guilty of official misconduct, a gross misdemeanor, if he “intentionally commits an 16 unauthorized act under color of law” or “refrains from performing a duty imposed 17 upon him .”
In re Recall of Weyrich, 554 P.3d 1202 (Wash. 2024). · cites it 3× “This representation is a misappropriation of public funds in violation of RCW 42.20.070. Should Sheriff Donald McDermott be recalled from office based on these charges? Id.”
Hart v. Janicki (W.D. Wash. 2023). “) 8 Plaintiffs assert ten causes of action: (1) violations of 18 U.S.C. § 47 ; (2) violations of 9 Skagit County Code 2.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.20.070(1) — 1 case
In re Recall of Weyrich, 554 P.3d 1202 (Wash. 2024). “This representation is a misappropriation of public funds in violation of RCW 42.20.070. Should Sheriff Donald McDermott be recalled from office based on these charges? Id.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.20.070(2) — 1 case
State v. Funkhouser, 637 P.2d 974 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). “Defendant thus contends his conviction must be reversed and all charges against him must be dismissed. We disagree.”
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.