Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9A · Chapter 9A.82
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.82.020 (2026)

Extortionate extension of credit

✓ 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 who knowingly makes an extortionate extension of credit is guilty of a class B felony.
(2) In a prosecution under this section, if it is shown that all of the following factors are present in connection with the extension of credit, there is prima facie evidence that the extension of credit was extortionate:
(a) The repayment of the extension of credit, or the performance of any promise given in consideration thereof, would be unenforceable at the time the extension of credit was made through civil judicial processes against the debtor in the county in which the debtor, if a natural person, resided or in every county in which the debtor, if other than a natural person, was incorporated or qualified to do business.
(b) The extension of credit was made at a rate of interest in excess of an annual rate of forty-five percent calculated according to the actuarial method of allocating payments made on a debt between principal and interest, pursuant to which a payment is applied first to the accumulated interest and the balance is applied to the unpaid principal.
(c) The creditor intended the debtor to believe that failure to comply with the terms of the extension of credit would be enforced by extortionate means.
(d) Upon the making of the extension of credit, the total of the extensions of credit by the creditor to the debtor then outstanding, including any unpaid interest or similar charges, exceeded one hundred dollars.
[ 2001 c 222 s 4. Prior: 1985 c 455 s 3; 1984 c 270 s 2.]

Notes:

Purpose—Effective date—2001 c 222: See notes following RCW 9A.82.001.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1999–2014 · leading case: State v. Sullivan, 19 P.3d 1012 (Wash. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Sullivan, 19 P.3d 1012 (Wash. 2001). “[49] See RCW 9A.82.020(2)(a); RCW 10.95.185(7); RCW 11.”
State v. Sullivan, 143 Wash. 2d 162 (Wash. 2001). “See RCW 9A.82.020(2)(a); RCW 10.95.185(7); RCW 11.”
State v. Duffey, 981 P.2d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “, RCW 9A.82.020(2)(a) (“unenforceable . . .”
State v. Owens (Wash. 2014). “Instead, Strohm argued that former RCW 9A.82.020(10) (1994), which defined "traffic", listed several alternative means of trafficking in stolen property in addition to the means stated in former RCW 9A.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.82.020(10) — 1 case
State v. Owens (Wash. 2014). “Instead, Strohm argued that former RCW 9A.82.020(10) (1994), which defined "traffic", listed several alternative means of trafficking in stolen property in addition to the means stated in former RCW 9A.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.82.020(2)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Sullivan, 19 P.3d 1012 (Wash. 2001). “[49] See RCW 9A.82.020(2)(a); RCW 10.95.185(7); RCW 11.”
State v. Sullivan, 143 Wash. 2d 162 (Wash. 2001). “See RCW 9A.82.020(2)(a); RCW 10.95.185(7); RCW 11.”
State v. Duffey, 981 P.2d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “, RCW 9A.82.020(2)(a) (“unenforceable . . .”
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.