Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.060 (2026)
Unlawful issuance of checks or drafts
✓ 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 shall with intent to defraud, make, or draw, or utter, or deliver to another person any check, or draft, on a bank or other depository for the payment of money, knowing at the time of such drawing, or delivery, that he or she has not sufficient funds in, or credit with the bank or other depository, to meet the check or draft, in full upon its presentation, is guilty of unlawful issuance of bank check. The word "credit" as used herein shall be construed to mean an arrangement or understanding with the bank or other depository for the payment of such check or draft, and the uttering or delivery of such a check or draft to another person without such fund or credit to meet the same shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to defraud.
(2) Any person who shall with intent to defraud, make, or draw, or utter, or deliver to another person any check, or draft on a bank or other depository for the payment of money and who issues a stop-payment order directing the bank or depository on which the check is drawn not to honor the check, and who fails to make payment of money in the amount of the check or draft or otherwise arrange a settlement agreed upon by the holder of the check within twenty days of issuing the check or draft is guilty of unlawful issuance of a bank check.
(3) When any series of transactions which constitute unlawful issuance of a bank check would, when considered separately, constitute unlawful issuance of a bank check in an amount of seven hundred fifty dollars or less because of value, and the series of transactions are a part of a common scheme or plan, 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 whether the unlawful issuance of a bank check is to be punished as a class C felony or a gross misdemeanor.
(4) Unlawful issuance of a bank check in an amount greater than seven hundred fifty dollars is a class C felony.
(5) Unlawful issuance of a bank check in an amount of seven hundred fifty dollars or less is a gross misdemeanor and shall be punished as follows:
(a) The court shall order the defendant to make full restitution;
(b) The defendant need not be imprisoned, but the court shall impose a fine of up to one thousand one hundred twenty-five dollars for adult offenders. Of the fine imposed, at least three hundred seventy-five dollars or an amount equal to one hundred fifty percent of the amount of the bank check, whichever is greater, shall not be suspended or deferred. Upon conviction for a second offense within any twelve-month period, the court may not suspend or defer any portion of the fine.
[ 2015 c 265 s 18; 2009 c 431 s 10; 1982 c 138 s 1; 1979 ex.s. c 244 s 14; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 s 9A.56.060.]
Notes:
Finding—Intent—2015 c 265: See note following RCW 13.50.010.
Applicability—2009 c 431: See note following RCW 4.24.230.
Effective date—1979 ex.s. c 244: See RCW 9A.44.902.
Property crime database, liability: RCW 4.24.340.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases, 1979–2019 · leading case: State v. Aitken, 905 P.2d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Aitken, 905 P.2d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “[3] Under the broad definitions in the money laundering statute, a person conducts a financial transaction when she issues a check. See RCW 9A.”
State v. Brown, 787 P.2d 906 (Wash. 1990). “We observed that the majority of the circuits of the United States Court of Appeals hold that theft crimes are not automatically admissible under Fed.”
Durand v. Himc Corp., 214 P.3d 189 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “The employers reason that the trial court's analysis puts them in a position where they will be subject to criminal liability if they write the check and civil liability if they do not.”
Durand v. HIMC Corp., 151 Wash. App. 818 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “See RCW 9A.56.060. They argue that their inability to pay should have precluded the trial court from finding that they willfully withheld wages.”
State v. Burton, 676 P.2d 975 (Wash. 1984). “[3] While in a broad sense theft is always dishonest, crimes of theft in general do not contain the requisite element of untruthfulness and thus, misdemeanor crimes of theft in general are inadmissible under ER 609(a)(2) unless there is some element of fraud or deceit (such as…”
State v. Meyer, 613 P.2d 132 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). “A related issue is whether the State should have relied upon the general theft statute at all, rather than the more specific statute prohibiting issuance of bad checks, RCW 9A.56.060. A third significant issue is whether defendant was improperly deterred from taking the stand in…”
State v. Brown, 761 P.2d 588 (Wash. 1988). “We observed that the majority of the federal circuits of the United States Covert of Appeals hold that theft crimes are not automatically admissible under Fed.”
State v. Stanton, 845 P.2d 1365 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “020(1); RCW 9A.56.060(1). 5 As a result, it was not, by itself, a fact of consequence to this case.”
Lensch v. Armada Corp., 795 F. Supp. 2d 1180 (W.D. Wash. 2011). “RCW 9A.56.060. An unsophisticated consumer could not be expected to distinguish a statement by a debt collector that means what it says— criminal proceedings may be instituted if the debt is not paid — from the specific elements actually necessary for prosecution under state law.”
State v. Downing, 93 P.3d 900 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “In December 2001 and February 2002, he was charged by citation in Mossyrock District Court with UIBC under RCW 9A.56.060. Each of the four citations listed a date and location of issuance, but not the check numbers of the bad checks.”
State v. Kane, 594 P.2d 1357 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). “James Kane appeals from his conviction of violating RCW 9A.56.060(1) and (2) — unlawful issuance of a bank check.”
State v. Downing, 93 P.3d 900 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “In December 2001 and February 2002, he was charged by citation in Mossyrock district court with UIBC under RCW 9A.56.060. Each of the four citations listed a date and location of issuance, but not the check numbers of the bad checks.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.060(1) — 4 cases
State v. Aitken, 905 P.2d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “[3] Under the broad definitions in the money laundering statute, a person conducts a financial transaction when she issues a check. See RCW 9A.”
State v. Kane, 594 P.2d 1357 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). “James Kane appeals from his conviction of violating RCW 9A.56.060(1) and (2) — unlawful issuance of a bank check.”
State v. Stanton, 845 P.2d 1365 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “020(1); RCW 9A.56.060(1). 5 As a result, it was not, by itself, a fact of consequence to this case.”
State v. Evans, 265 P.3d 179 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.060(3) — 1 case
State v. Stanton, 845 P.2d 1365 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “020(1); RCW 9A.56.060(1). 5 As a result, it was not, by itself, a fact of consequence to this case.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.060(5) — 3 cases
State v. Zibell, 646 P.2d 154 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982).
Lensch v. Armada Corp., 795 F. Supp. 2d 1180 (W.D. Wash. 2011). “RCW 9A.56.060. An unsophisticated consumer could not be expected to distinguish a statement by a debt collector that means what it says— criminal proceedings may be instituted if the debt is not paid — from the specific elements actually necessary for prosecution under state law.”
Hunton v. Kincheloe, 774 P.2d 1271 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989).
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.