Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.35
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.35.020 (2026)

Identity theft

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) No person may knowingly obtain, possess, use, or transfer a means of identification or financial information of another person, living or dead, with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any crime.
(2) Violation of this section when the accused or an accomplice violates subsection (1) of this section and obtains credit, money, goods, services, or anything else of value in excess of one thousand five hundred dollars in value, or when the accused knowingly targets a senior or vulnerable individual in carrying out a violation of subsection (1) of this section, shall constitute identity theft in the first degree. Identity theft in the first degree is a class B felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(3) A person is guilty of identity theft in the second degree when he or she violates subsection (1) of this section under circumstances not amounting to identity theft in the first degree. Identity theft in the second degree is a class C felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(4) Each crime prosecuted under this section shall be punished separately under chapter 9.94A RCW, unless it is the same criminal conduct as any other crime, under RCW 9.94A.589.
(5) Whenever any series of transactions involving a single person's means of identification or financial information which constitute identity theft would, when considered separately, constitute identity theft in the second degree because of value, and the series of transactions are a part of a common scheme or plan, then the transactions may be aggregated in one count and the sum of the value of all of the transactions shall be the value considered in determining the degree of identity theft involved.
(6) Every person who, in the commission of identity theft, shall commit any other crime may be punished therefor as well as for the identity theft, and may be prosecuted for each crime separately.
(7) A person who violates this section is liable for civil damages of one thousand dollars or actual damages, whichever is greater, including costs to repair the victim's credit record, and reasonable attorneys' fees as determined by the court.
(8) In a proceeding under this section, the crime will be considered to have been committed in any locality where the person whose means of identification or financial information was appropriated resides, or in which any part of the offense took place, regardless of whether the defendant was ever actually in that locality.
(9) The provisions of this section do not apply to any person who obtains another person's driver's license or other form of identification for the sole purpose of misrepresenting his or her age.
(10) In a proceeding under this section in which a person's means of identification or financial information was used without that person's authorization, and when there has been a conviction, the sentencing court may issue such orders as are necessary to correct a public record that contains false information resulting from a violation of this section.
[ 2017 c 4 s 5 (Initiative Measure No. 1501, approved November 8, 2016); 2008 c 207 s 4; 2004 c 273 s 2; 2003 c 53 s 22; 2001 c 217 s 9; 1999 c 368 s 3.]

Notes:

Short title—Intent—Construction—2017 c 4 (Initiative Measure No. 1501): See notes following RCW 9.35.005.
Finding—Intent—2008 c 207 ss 3 and 4: See note following RCW 9.35.001.
Finding—Purpose—2004 c 273: "The legislature finds that identity theft and the other types of fraud is a significant problem in the state of Washington, costing our citizens and businesses millions each year. The most common method of accomplishing identity theft and other fraudulent activity is by securing a fraudulently issued driver's license. It is the purpose of this act to significantly reduce identity theft and other fraud by preventing the fraudulent issuance of driver's licenses and identicards." [ 2004 c 273 s 1.]
Effective date—2004 c 273: "This act takes effect July 1, 2004." [ 2004 c 273 s 5.]
Captions not law—2001 c 217: See note following RCW 9.35.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 122 cases (23 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: State v. Evans, 298 P.3d 724 (Wash. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Evans, 298 P.3d 724 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 21× “Evans now challenges his conviction on the ground that RCW 9.35.020 (the identity theft statute) criminalizes theft of a natural person’s identity but does not criminalize theft of a corporate identity — or, in the alternative, that the statute is unconstitutionally vague.”
State v. Leyda, 138 P.3d 610 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 39× “On appeal here, Leyda claims that his multiple second degree identity theft convictions under RCW 9.35.020 violate constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy because he committed only one offense when he unlawfully obtained another person's credit card and subsequently…”
State v. Leyda, 157 Wash. 2d 335 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 39× “On appeal here, Leyda claims that his multiple second degree identity theft convictions under RCW 9.35.020 violate constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy because he committed only one offense when he unlawfully obtained another person’s credit card and subsequently…”
State v. Leyda, 94 P.3d 397 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “The plain language of RCW 9.35.020 indicates the legislature intended to penalize the use of stolen information.”
State v. Leyda, 122 Wash. App. 633 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “The plain language of RCW 9.35.020 indicates the legislature intended to penalize the use of stolen information.”
State v. Fedorov, 324 P.3d 784 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “4 RCW 9.35.020(1). The victim must be a “specific, real person.”
State v. Sells, 271 P.3d 952 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 5× “020(2): “Violation of this section when the accused or an accomplice violates subsection (1) of this section and obtains credit, money, goods, services, or anything else of value in excess of one thousand five hundred dollars in value shall constitute identity theft in the first…”
State v. Presba, 131 Wash. App. 47 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “CONCURRENT STATUTES ¶8 Presba first contends that RCW 9.35.020(1), with which she was charged, is concurrent with RCW 9A.”
State v. Presba, 126 P.3d 1280 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “CONCURRENT STATUTES ¶ 8 Presba first contends that RCW 9.35.020(1), with which she was charged, is concurrent with RCW 9A.”
State v. Barboza-Cortes, 451 P.3d 707 (Wash. 2019). · cites it 3× “RCW 9.35.020(1) provides that "[n]o person may knowingly obtain, possess, use, or transfer a means ofidentification orfinancial information of another person, living or dead, with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any crime.”
State v. Berry, 117 P.3d 1162 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 12× “¶ 2 Berry's appeal requires us to interpret the identity theft statute, former RCW 9.35.020. [1] Berry argues that under that statute, the means of identification used by the defendant must be that of a real person, not merely false identification.”
People v. Bochenek, 2021 IL 125889 (Ill. 2021). “033 (2) (2016)); Washington ( Wash. Rev. Code § 9.35.020 (8) (2016)). These states have made the same legislative determination that, for purposes of this type of crime, personal information is located where the owner of that information resides.”
Show all 122 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.35.020(1) — 81 cases
State v. Evans, 298 P.3d 724 (Wash. 2013). “Evans now challenges his conviction on the ground that RCW 9.35.020 (the identity theft statute) criminalizes theft of a natural person’s identity but does not criminalize theft of a corporate identity — or, in the alternative, that the statute is unconstitutionally vague.”
State v. Leyda, 138 P.3d 610 (Wash. 2006). “On appeal here, Leyda claims that his multiple second degree identity theft convictions under RCW 9.35.020 violate constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy because he committed only one offense when he unlawfully obtained another person's credit card and subsequently…”
State v. Leyda, 157 Wash. 2d 335 (Wash. 2006). “On appeal here, Leyda claims that his multiple second degree identity theft convictions under RCW 9.35.020 violate constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy because he committed only one offense when he unlawfully obtained another person’s credit card and subsequently…”
State v. Barboza-Cortes, 451 P.3d 707 (Wash. 2019). “RCW 9.35.020(1) provides that "[n]o person may knowingly obtain, possess, use, or transfer a means ofidentification orfinancial information of another person, living or dead, with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any crime.”
State v. Fedorov, 324 P.3d 784 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “4 RCW 9.35.020(1). The victim must be a “specific, real person.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.35.020(1)(a) — 1 case
State of Washington v. Freddy Munoz Razo (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.35.020(2) — 15 cases
State v. Leyda, 138 P.3d 610 (Wash. 2006). “On appeal here, Leyda claims that his multiple second degree identity theft convictions under RCW 9.35.020 violate constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy because he committed only one offense when he unlawfully obtained another person's credit card and subsequently…”
State v. Leyda, 157 Wash. 2d 335 (Wash. 2006). “On appeal here, Leyda claims that his multiple second degree identity theft convictions under RCW 9.35.020 violate constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy because he committed only one offense when he unlawfully obtained another person’s credit card and subsequently…”
State v. Fedorov, 324 P.3d 784 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “4 RCW 9.35.020(1). The victim must be a “specific, real person.”
State v. Sells, 271 P.3d 952 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “020(2): “Violation of this section when the accused or an accomplice violates subsection (1) of this section and obtains credit, money, goods, services, or anything else of value in excess of one thousand five hundred dollars in value shall constitute identity theft in the first…”
State v. Thomas, 214 P.3d 215 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.35.020(2)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Leyda, 157 Wash. 2d 335 (Wash. 2006). “On appeal here, Leyda claims that his multiple second degree identity theft convictions under RCW 9.35.020 violate constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy because he committed only one offense when he unlawfully obtained another person’s credit card and subsequently…”
State v. Leyda, 138 P.3d 610 (Wash. 2006). “On appeal here, Leyda claims that his multiple second degree identity theft convictions under RCW 9.35.020 violate constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy because he committed only one offense when he unlawfully obtained another person's credit card and subsequently…”
State v. Leyda, 94 P.3d 397 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “The plain language of RCW 9.35.020 indicates the legislature intended to penalize the use of stolen information.”
State v. Leyda, 122 Wash. App. 633 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “The plain language of RCW 9.35.020 indicates the legislature intended to penalize the use of stolen information.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.35.020(2)(b) — 4 cases
State v. Leyda, 138 P.3d 610 (Wash. 2006). “On appeal here, Leyda claims that his multiple second degree identity theft convictions under RCW 9.35.020 violate constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy because he committed only one offense when he unlawfully obtained another person's credit card and subsequently…”
State v. Leyda, 157 Wash. 2d 335 (Wash. 2006). “On appeal here, Leyda claims that his multiple second degree identity theft convictions under RCW 9.35.020 violate constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy because he committed only one offense when he unlawfully obtained another person’s credit card and subsequently…”
State v. Leyda, 94 P.3d 397 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “The plain language of RCW 9.35.020 indicates the legislature intended to penalize the use of stolen information.”
State v. Leyda, 122 Wash. App. 633 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “The plain language of RCW 9.35.020 indicates the legislature intended to penalize the use of stolen information.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.35.020(3) — 26 cases
State v. Evans, 298 P.3d 724 (Wash. 2013). “Evans now challenges his conviction on the ground that RCW 9.35.020 (the identity theft statute) criminalizes theft of a natural person’s identity but does not criminalize theft of a corporate identity — or, in the alternative, that the statute is unconstitutionally vague.”
State v. Fedorov, 324 P.3d 784 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “4 RCW 9.35.020(1). The victim must be a “specific, real person.”
State v. Sells, 271 P.3d 952 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “020(2): “Violation of this section when the accused or an accomplice violates subsection (1) of this section and obtains credit, money, goods, services, or anything else of value in excess of one thousand five hundred dollars in value shall constitute identity theft in the first…”
State v. Ellison, 291 P.3d 921 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
State v. Allenbach, 147 P.3d 644 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.35.020(4) — 3 cases
In Re Newlun, 240 P.3d 795 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
In re the Pers. Restraint of Newlun, 158 Wash. App. 28 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
State Of Washington v. Allan Sherburne Zartuche (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.35.020(5) — 4 cases
State v. Presba, 131 Wash. App. 47 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “CONCURRENT STATUTES ¶8 Presba first contends that RCW 9.35.020(1), with which she was charged, is concurrent with RCW 9A.”
State v. Presba, 126 P.3d 1280 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “CONCURRENT STATUTES ¶ 8 Presba first contends that RCW 9.35.020(1), with which she was charged, is concurrent with RCW 9A.”
State Of Washington v. Karey Ann Hinkson (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State Of Washington v. Elizabeth Jenson (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.35.020(6) — 6 cases
State v. Hayes, 262 P.3d 538 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Presba, 131 Wash. App. 47 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “CONCURRENT STATUTES ¶8 Presba first contends that RCW 9.35.020(1), with which she was charged, is concurrent with RCW 9A.”
State v. Presba, 126 P.3d 1280 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “CONCURRENT STATUTES ¶ 8 Presba first contends that RCW 9.35.020(1), with which she was charged, is concurrent with RCW 9A.”
State Of Washington, V Albert K. Smith (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State Of Washington v. Bobby A. Norman (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.35.020(7) — 2 cases
Galper v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 802 F.3d 437 (2d Cir. 2015).
Sarah Nunley v. Chelan-Douglas Health Dist. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.35.020(8) — 2 cases
State Of Washington v. Allan Sherburne Zartuche (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
Junzhi Shao v. City Of Kent (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.35.020(9) — 1 case
State Of Washington, V. Seraj Tillisy (Wash. Ct. App. 2022).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.35.020(l) — 1 case
State v. Leyda, 157 Wash. 2d 335 (Wash. 2006). “On appeal here, Leyda claims that his multiple second degree identity theft convictions under RCW 9.35.020 violate constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy because he committed only one offense when he unlawfully obtained another person’s credit card and subsequently…”
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.