Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.45
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.45.060 (2026)

Encumbered, leased, or rented personal property—Construction

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Every person being in possession thereof, who shall sell, remove, conceal, convert to his or her own use, or destroy or connive at or consent to the sale, removal, conversion, concealment, or destruction of any personal property or any part thereof, upon which a security agreement, mortgage, lien, conditional sales contract, rental agreement, or lease exists, with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the secured party of such security agreement, or the holder of such mortgage, lien, or conditional sales contract or the lessor under such lease or rentor under such rental agreement, or any assignee of such security agreement, mortgage, lien, conditional sales contract, rental agreement or lease shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
In any prosecution under this section any allegation containing a description of the security agreement, mortgage, lien, conditional sales contract, rental agreement, or lease by reference to the date thereof and names of the parties thereto, shall be sufficiently definite and certain.
The provisions of this section shall be cumulative and nonexclusive and shall not affect any other criminal provision.
[ 2011 c 336 s 298; 1971 c 61 s 1; 1965 ex.s. c 109 s 1; 1909 c 249 s 377; RRS s 2629.]

Notes:

Destruction or removal of fixtures, etc., from mortgaged real property: RCW 61.12.030.
Larceny, sale of mortgaged property: Chapter 9A.56 RCW.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1986–1986 · leading case: State v. Jendrey, 730 P.2d 1374 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Jendrey, 730 P.2d 1374 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 9× “victed of second degree theft rather than criminal possession of leased or rented equipment; (3) the second degree theft statute is unconstitutionally void for vagueness; and (4) the prosecutor is without discretion to charge a defendant with second *381 degree theft rather than…”
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.