Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.46
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.46.220 (2026)

Professional gambling in the first degree

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A person is guilty of professional gambling in the first degree if he or she engages in, or knowingly causes, aids, abets, or conspires with another to engage in professional gambling as defined in this chapter, and:
(a) Acts in concert with or conspires with five or more people;
(b) Personally accepts wagers exceeding five thousand dollars during any thirty-day period on future contingent events;
(c) The operation for whom the person works, or with which the person is involved, accepts wagers exceeding five thousand dollars during any thirty-day period on future contingent events;
(d) Operates, manages, or profits from the operation of a premises or location where persons are charged a fee to participate in card games, lotteries, or other gambling activities that are not authorized by this chapter or licensed by the commission; or
(e) Engages in bookmaking as defined in RCW 9.46.0213.
(2) However, this section shall not apply to those activities enumerated in RCW 9.46.0305 through 9.46.0361 or to any act or acts in furtherance of such activities when conducted in compliance with the provisions of this chapter and in accordance with the rules adopted pursuant to this chapter.
(3) Professional gambling in the first degree is a class B felony subject to the penalty set forth in RCW 9A.20.021.
[ 2020 c 127 s 8; 1997 c 78 s 2; 1994 c 218 s 11; 1991 c 261 s 10; 1987 c 4 s 42; 1973 1st ex.s. c 218 s 22.]

Notes:

Intent—Effective date—2020 c 127: See notes following RCW 9.46.0364.
Effective date—1994 c 218: See note following RCW 9.46.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1975–2015 · leading case: State v. Forbes, 719 P.2d 941 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Forbes, 719 P.2d 941 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “020(17) (a) and (b) and RCW 9.46.220. The State's evidence showed that an undercover King County detective, P.”
State v. Gedarro, 579 P.2d 949 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “Gedarro was convicted of two counts of professional gambling (RCW 9.46.220) committed on August 13 and 20, 1976, and two counts of gambling without a license (RCW 9.”
State v. Postema, 731 P.2d 13 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). “On August 13, 1985, Postema and Howard were charged with professional gambling: bookmaking, under RCW 9.46.220 and .020(4). On October 4,1985, Postema and Howard moved to dismiss on the grounds that the statutory definition of bookmaking was unconstitutionally vague.”
State v. Manning, 543 P.2d 632 (Wash. 1975). “Defendants were arrested and charged in district court with professional gambling in violation of RCW 9.46.220. Following a preliminary appearance they were released, one on bail, the other on recognizance.”
Dodd v. Gregory, 663 P.2d 161 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). “RCW 9.46.220. Professional gambling is defined in RCW 9.”
Internet Comm. & Ent. Corp. v. State, 201 P.3d 1045 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “221 (describing elements of second degree professional gambling and designating that crime as a class C felony); RCW 9.”
Internet Cmty. & Ent. Corp. v. Washington State Gambling Comm'n, 148 Wash. App. 795 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “0269 (defining “professional gambling”); RCW 9.46.220 (describing elements of first degree professional gambling and designating that crime as a class B felony); RCW 9.”
State v. Langford, 628 P.2d 829 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). “020(17)(a) and (d) and RCW 9.46.220) and from a deferred sentence.”
United States v. Olney, 129 F. Supp. 3d 1063 (E.D. Wash. 2015). “As the necessary predicate' state law offense, Defendant was charged with willfully and knowingly conducting, financing, manag *1068 ing, supervising, directing, and owning all or part of an illegal gambling business- involving betting on cockfighting in violation of sections…”
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.