Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9A · Chapter 9A.83
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.83.020 (2026)

Money laundering

✓ 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 money laundering when that person conducts or attempts to conduct a financial transaction involving the proceeds of specified unlawful activity and:
(a) Knows the property is proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or
(b) Knows that the transaction is designed in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of the proceeds, and acts recklessly as to whether the property is proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or
(c) Knows that the transaction is designed in whole or in part to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under federal law.
(2) In consideration of the constitutional right to counsel afforded by the Fifth and Sixth amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 22 of the Constitution of Washington, an additional proof requirement is imposed when a case involves a licensed attorney who accepts a fee for representing a client in an actual criminal investigation or proceeding. In these situations, the prosecution is required to prove that the attorney accepted proceeds of specified unlawful activity with intent:
(a) To conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of the proceeds, knowing the property is proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or
(b) To avoid a transaction reporting requirement under federal law.
The proof required by this subsection is in addition to the requirements contained in subsection (1) of this section.
(3) An additional proof requirement is imposed when a case involves a financial institution and one or more of its employees. In these situations, the prosecution is required to prove that proceeds of specified unlawful activity were accepted with intent:
(a) To conceal or disguised [disguise] the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of the proceeds, knowing the property is proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or
(b) To avoid a transaction reporting requirement under federal law.
The proof required by this subsection is in addition to the requirements contained in subsection (1) of this section.
(4) Money laundering is a class B felony.
(5) A person who violates this section is also liable for a civil penalty of twice the value of the proceeds involved in the financial transaction and for the costs of the suit, including reasonable investigative and attorneys' fees.
(6) Proceedings under this chapter shall be in addition to any other criminal penalties, civil penalties, or forfeitures authorized under state law.
[ 1992 c 210 s 2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: State v. Aitken, 905 P.2d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Aitken, 905 P.2d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 17× “Do these inconsistent factual findings support the conclusion that Aitken is guilty of money laundering? To answer this question, we must decide whether the Legislature intended Aitken's activities to be punished by the money laundering statute.”
State v. Harris, 272 P.3d 299 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “50 RCW; (t) Money laundering, as defined in RCW 9A.83.020. Although RCW 9A.82.010(4) includes numerous potential predicate offenses, it also requires that the potential predicate offense be “committed for financial gain.”
State v. Jain, 151 Wash. App. 117 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 5× “ncial transaction, to-wit: the pledge, gift, transfer, transmission, trade, and disposition of real property known as Lot 7 River ‘n Forest 4 Granite Falls, tax parcel number 00557100100700, involving the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, to-wit: Delivery of a Controlled…”
State v. Jain, 210 P.3d 1061 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 5× “ncial transaction, to-wit: the pledge, gift, transfer, transmission, trade, and disposition of real property known as Lot 7 River `n Forest 4 Granite Falls, tax parcel number XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, involving the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, to-wit: Delivery of a Controlled…”
State v. Dingman, 202 P.3d 388 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “" [7] RCW 9A.83.020(1) provides: "A person is guilty of money laundering when that person conducts or attempts to conduct a financial transaction involving the proceeds of specified unlawful activity and: (a) Knows the property is proceeds of specified unlawful activity.”
State v. McCarty, 950 P.2d 992 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 23× “RCW 9A.83.020 provides in pertinent part: (1) A person is guilty of money laundering when that person conducts or attempts to conduct a.”
State v. Liden, 156 P.3d 259 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “[3] Webster's Dictionary defines a "bank" as an "establishment for the custody, loan, exchange, or issue of money, for the extension of credit, and for facilitating the transmission of funds by drafts or bills of exchange; an institution incorporated for performing one or more…”
State v. Liden, 138 Wash. App. 110 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 172 (1976). See e.g.”
Angulo v. Providence Health & Servs. Washington (E.D. Wash. 2025). · cites it 2× “020; money 5 laundering, pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.83.020(1)(a)&(b), 9A.”
Goold v. Dreyer (E.D. Wash. 2025). · cites it 2× “020, money 14 laundering, pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code §§ 9A.83.020(1)(a)&(b), 9A.”
State Of Washington, V. Jenny Nicole Purple (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “RCW 9A.83.020(1). Purple argues that the State failed to prove she committed first degree theft from a vulnerable adult related to the Tillamook house, and consequently failed to prove both counts IV and V.”
State Of Washington, Res. v. Keith Thomas Blair, App. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “Blair argued that this was the first time the State had used payment of attorney fees as a basis for a money laundering charge under RCW 9A.83.020. The court requested additional briefing.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.83.020(1) — 5 cases
State v. Aitken, 905 P.2d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “Do these inconsistent factual findings support the conclusion that Aitken is guilty of money laundering? To answer this question, we must decide whether the Legislature intended Aitken's activities to be punished by the money laundering statute.”
State v. Harris, 272 P.3d 299 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “50 RCW; (t) Money laundering, as defined in RCW 9A.83.020. Although RCW 9A.82.010(4) includes numerous potential predicate offenses, it also requires that the potential predicate offense be “committed for financial gain.”
State v. Dingman, 202 P.3d 388 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “" [7] RCW 9A.83.020(1) provides: "A person is guilty of money laundering when that person conducts or attempts to conduct a financial transaction involving the proceeds of specified unlawful activity and: (a) Knows the property is proceeds of specified unlawful activity.”
State v. McCarty, 950 P.2d 992 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “RCW 9A.83.020 provides in pertinent part: (1) A person is guilty of money laundering when that person conducts or attempts to conduct a.”
State Of Washington, V. Jenny Nicole Purple (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “RCW 9A.83.020(1). Purple argues that the State failed to prove she committed first degree theft from a vulnerable adult related to the Tillamook house, and consequently failed to prove both counts IV and V.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.83.020(1)(a) — 5 cases
State v. Aitken, 905 P.2d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “Do these inconsistent factual findings support the conclusion that Aitken is guilty of money laundering? To answer this question, we must decide whether the Legislature intended Aitken's activities to be punished by the money laundering statute.”
State v. Dingman, 202 P.3d 388 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “" [7] RCW 9A.83.020(1) provides: "A person is guilty of money laundering when that person conducts or attempts to conduct a financial transaction involving the proceeds of specified unlawful activity and: (a) Knows the property is proceeds of specified unlawful activity.”
Angulo v. Providence Health & Servs. Washington (E.D. Wash. 2025). “020; money 5 laundering, pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.83.020(1)(a)&(b), 9A.”
Goold v. Dreyer (E.D. Wash. 2025). “020, money 14 laundering, pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code §§ 9A.83.020(1)(a)&(b), 9A.”
State v. McCarty, 950 P.2d 992 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “RCW 9A.83.020 provides in pertinent part: (1) A person is guilty of money laundering when that person conducts or attempts to conduct a.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.83.020(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. Aitken, 905 P.2d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “Do these inconsistent factual findings support the conclusion that Aitken is guilty of money laundering? To answer this question, we must decide whether the Legislature intended Aitken's activities to be punished by the money laundering statute.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.83.020(2)(a) — 1 case
State v. McCarty, 950 P.2d 992 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “RCW 9A.83.020 provides in pertinent part: (1) A person is guilty of money laundering when that person conducts or attempts to conduct a.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.83.020(l)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Aitken, 905 P.2d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “Do these inconsistent factual findings support the conclusion that Aitken is guilty of money laundering? To answer this question, we must decide whether the Legislature intended Aitken's activities to be punished by the money laundering statute.”
State v. McCarty, 950 P.2d 992 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “RCW 9A.83.020 provides in pertinent part: (1) A person is guilty of money laundering when that person conducts or attempts to conduct a.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.83.020(l)(b) — 1 case
State v. Aitken, 905 P.2d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “Do these inconsistent factual findings support the conclusion that Aitken is guilty of money laundering? To answer this question, we must decide whether the Legislature intended Aitken's activities to be punished by the money laundering statute.”
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.