This bill imposes a new annual fiscal procedure on seizing law enforcement agencies: by January 31 each year each seizing agency must remit to the state an amount equal to 10 percent of the net proceeds from property forfeited during the preceding calendar year, and that money must be deposited in the prostitution prevention and intervention account under RCW 43.63A.740. The bill defines “net proceeds” for these purposes (value of the forfeitable interest less amounts needed to satisfy bona fide security interests and, for sold items, costs of sale including reasonable independent selling fees). It specifies valuation rules (sale price for sold items; fair market value at time of seizure for retained property, using common indexes when possible; appraisal optional and net of appraisal cost; value of destroyed property and of retained firearms or illegal property is zero), allows seizing agencies to use forfeiture proceeds to pay investigative and forfeiture expenses (including prosecuting or city attorney actual costs and court costs), and permits the seizing agency to retain remaining funds for the exclusive use of enforcing the referenced chapter or chapter 9A.88 RCW. The bill also reenacts and amends RCW 9.94A.515 and inserts a Table 2 titled “CRIMES INCLUDED WITHIN EACH SERIOUSNESS LEVEL,” mapping a long list of statutory offenses to sentencing seriousness levels. The extracted text shows many specific RCW citations included in that table (for example, offenses ranging from computer crimes, frauds, thefts, certain fish and wildlife violations, to various property and financial crimes). This is a statutory amendment to the sentencing-guidelines statute that changes the statutory list of crimes organized by seriousness level (a procedural change to how crimes are classified within the sentencing framework). Important context is missing: the provided text begins mid-provision and the Table 2 listing is incomplete, so the full list of mapped offenses and any accompanying explanatory language are not present. The meaning of numeric markers that appear after some offenses and the identity of a referenced “Department” are not defined in the extracted facts, and it is not possible from the available text to say whether other sections of the act make additional related changes.

If enacted, local law enforcement agencies that seize property will need to calculate net proceeds from forfeitures each year and remit 10% of that amount to the state prostitution prevention and intervention account by January 31. That means agencies will have somewhat less money from forfeitures for their own use, and they may face extra administrative work and costs to value property (including hiring appraisers or selling agents whose fees reduce net proceeds) and to track and remit the payment on a fixed annual schedule. Proceeds can still be used first to cover investigative, prosecutorial, sale, and court costs, and agencies keep what remains for enforcement of the referenced criminal provisions. The groups most affected are seizing law enforcement agencies (funding reduced by the required remittance and exposed to new valuation and reporting costs), the state prostitution prevention and intervention programs (which would gain a new, predictable revenue source), and private appraisers or selling agents who may be hired and paid from sale proceeds. It’s unclear from the provided text how the reenactment/amendment of RCW 9.94A.515 and the incomplete crime seriousness table change sentencing or enforcement priorities, so any downstream effects tied to those changes cannot be determined here.