IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 67523-1-1 Respondent, DIVISION ONE 

## s :£&

v. WILLIAM LAU, PUBLISHED OPINION
CD r:;: y, Appellant. FILED: May 20, 2013 > 'A'"---'- 

### Schindler, J. —The Gambling Act of 1973, chapter 9.46 RCW, authorizes^itiesf:-: CD to tax pull-tab game operators at a rate not to exceed five percent ofgross gambling receipts. The Washington State Gambling Commission licensed the "Lau Family Living 

### Trust" to operate pull-tab games at the bars itowned inthe city of Burien and the city of Federal Way. William Lau underreported the amount ofgross gambling receipts for pull-tab sales. The State charged Lau with theft inthe first degree of "property belonging to the City of Federal Way" and theft inthe second degree of "property belonging to the City of Burien." Because the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lau obtained control over the property ofanother or a superior interest inthe gross gambling receipts, we reverse.No. 67523-1-1/2

FACTS 

### In2000, William Lau and his spouse Josephine Lau established the Lau Family Living Trust (Trust). Williamand Josephine are designated as the sole trustees. The Trust formed TLF Holdings LLC and Tall Timbers Enterprise LLC. The Trust is the sole

owner and William Lau is designated as the manager of TLF Holdings and Tall Timbers Enterprise. TLF Holdings purchased BZ's Sports Bar &Grill located inthe city of Burien. Tall Timbers Enterprise purchased Tall Timbers Tavern located in the city of Federal Way and Good Time Ernie's in the city ofBurien. The Washington State Gambling Commission (Gambling Commission) licensed the three bars to operate pull-tab games. State law requires pull-tab licensees to submit

a detailed monthly income summary for all pull-tab sales and gross gambling receipts 

### from theoperation ofthe games to theGambling Commission.1 Pull-tab operators must alsosubmitquarterly activity reports to theGambling Commission.2 TheGambling Commission has the authority to inspect and audit the records of a licensee to ensure 

### compliance.3 Each page ofthe monthly income summary has a column to record 16 pull-tab games and compute gross gambling receipts based on the "Size ofthe Game," 

### "Number Not Sold," "Number Played," and "Cost Per Play" before listing "Cash Prizes," the "Net Gambling Receipts," "Actual Cash Count," and "Cash Over or (Short)." Each page also records the total gross receipts for all pull-tab games listed on that page. The final page records the calculation of the "grand total" ofthe gross gambling receipts for



### 1WAC 230-14-280 {formerlyWAC 230-30-072), -285 (formerlyWAC 230-08-010 [in part]); WAC 230-06-070 (formerly WAC 230-08-010 [in part]). 2WAC 230-14-284 (formerlyWAC 230-08-130). 3RCW 9.46.130.No. 67523-1-1/3 

### that month. The quarterly activity report records the total gross receipts for all pull-tab games, as well as the local gambling taxes forthat period. 

### Byordinance, the city of Burien imposed a tax of five percent on the gross 

### gambling receipts from the operation of pull-tabgames. The city of Federal Way also imposed a five percenttax on pull-tab operators based on gross gambling receipts. 

### In March2010, Gambling Commission Special AgentJess Lohse reviewed the monthly income summaries prepared and signed by Lau for BZ's Sports Bar &Grill. Special Agent Lohse discovered the grand total for the gross gambling receipts recorded in October, November, and December 2009 did not match the gross gambling 

### receipts recorded in the fourth quarter activity report. The discrepancy between the 

### monthly incomesummaries and the fourth quarter activity report showed that Lau underreported gross gambling receipts by $15,301. 

### Special Agent Lohse conducted an audit of the monthly income summaries, the 

### quarterly activity reports, and the gambling tax returnssubmitted byLau for BZ's Sports Bar &Grill and Good Time Ernie's from 2006 through 2009, and for TallTimbers Tavern 

### from mid-2005 through 2009. Special Agent Lohse determined that Lau underreported 

### gross receipts from theoperation ofpull-tab games by $85,038.00 for BZ's SportsBar & Grill, $14,920.25 for Good Time Ernie's, and $235,479.50 for TallTimbers Tavern. Inthe "Certification for Determination ofProbable Cause" (Certification), Special 

### Agent Lohsesets forth a detailed description of the investigation and audit ofthe records submitted by Lau for BZ's Sports Bar &Grill, Tall Timbers Tavern, and Good Time Ernie's. The Certification states, in pertinent part: 

### 5. After obtaining each licensee's monthly records, Itested the 

### mathematical accuracy ofeach page contained in a given month. IfoundNo. 67523-1-1/4 a total of 128 discrepancies. Idetermined that all 128 discrepancies noted were the result of LAU intentionally and deliberately falsifying totals recorded on monthly record pages. Ifound no other intentional or deliberate discrepancies caused by employees other than LAU. LAU almost always underreported by whole dollar amounts. In cases where LAU did not underreport by whole dollar amounts, there were otherfactors involved.

. . . 7. After reviewing each licensee's monthly records, Icompared the total gross receipts Idetermined by review ofthe monthly records to quarterly activity reports submitted to the Commission and gambling tax returns submitted to the local taxing authority. Idetermined that between 2006 and 2009, a total of 39 quarterly activity reports [(QAR)] and 39 gambling tax returns were falsified by LAU. Inoted that LAU completed every QAR submitted to the Commission from 2006 through 2009. Ialso noted that LAU completed every gambling tax return submitted to the local taxing authority from 2006 through 2009 8. During the investigation, Ialso determined that LAU put many pull-tab games in play and the games generated revenue. However, LAU failed to record the revenue brought in for the games on monthly records, QAR's, and gambling tax returns. Inthe Certification, Special Agent Lohse concludes there was probable cause that Lau committed the crimes of "Forgery, RCW 9A.60.020, a Felony; Offering False Instrument for Filing or Record, RCW 40.16.030, a Felony; False or Misleading Entries or Statements, RCW 9.46.170, a Gross Misdemeanor; and Violations Relating to Fraud or Deceit, RCW 9.46.190, a Gross Misdemeanor." 

### The State charged Lau withone counttheft in the firstdegree and one count of 

### theft in the seconddegree.4 Lau denied intentionally underreporting orfalsifying the gross gambling receipts. The defense argued that the calculation ofgross gambling receipts does not include pull-tab tickets that were lost, stolen, or mistakenly counted. A number ofwitnesses testified at trial, including Special Agent Lohse; two 

### employees who worked at BZ's Sports Bar &Grill, Good Time Ernie's, and TallTimbers

4Lau entered into a consent orderwith the Gambling Commission. 4No. 67523-1-1/5 Tavern, Colleen Schroeder and Kathleen O'Neill; the finance analyst for Federal Way; and the accounting managerfor Burien. 

### Special Agent Lohse testified at length about the audit and calculation ofgross gambling receipts. The Burien accounting manager, Gary Coleman, testified that the 

### city's gambling tax was based on "each dollar received" for pull-tab games. The Federal Way finance analyst, Phung Huynh, testified that Federal Way imposed a five percent tax on gross gambling receipts. 

### Schroedertestified that employees often made errors inentering information or 

### mixing pull-tab receipts from one game with a different game. Schroeder also testified that employees and customers sometimes stole pull-tabs. Schroeder and O'Neill each testified that Lau prepared the monthlygross income gambling receipt summaries, the quarterly activity reports, and the gambling tax returns, and identified Lau's signature on the reports. 

### The jury convicted Lauas charged of theft in the firstdegree and theftin the second degree. ANALYSIS 

### Lau contends the State did not meet its burden of proving an essential element of the crime of theft. Lau asserts the State did not prove that he wrongfully obtained "the 

### property ofanother." The State claims it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the cities had an ownership interest in fivepercent ofthe gross gambling receipts for BZ's Sports Bar &Grill, TallTimbers Tavern, and Good Time Ernie's. The State has the burden to prove the elements ofthe crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. InreWinship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368No. 67523-1-1/6 

### (1970); State v. Borrero. 147 Wn.2d 353, 364, 58 P.3d 245 (2002). Under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment ofthe United States Constitution, 

### and article 1, section 21 of the Washington State Constitution, a criminaldefendant is entitled to "lajurydetermination that [he] is guilty ofevery element of the crime with 

### which he ischarged, beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Apprendi v. NewJersey, 530 U.S. 

### 466,476-77, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000)5 (quoting United States v. Gaudin. 515 U.S. 506. 510. 115 S. Ct. 2310, 132 L. Ed. 2d 444 (1995)); State v. Abrams. 163 Wn.2d 277, 285, 178 P.3d 1021 (2008). 

### Under the Gambling Act of 1973, chapter 9.46 RCW (Gambling Act), the State is 

### designated as the exclusive authority for regulating gambling activity. RCW 9.46.285

states:

### This chapterconstitutes the exclusive legislative authority for the licensing 

### and regulation of any gambling activity and the state preempts such licensing and regulatory functions, except as to the powers and duties of 

### any city, town, city-county, or countywhich are specifically setforth in this chapter. Any ordinance, resolution, or other legislative act by any city, town, city-county, or county relating to gambling inexistence on 

### September 27, 1973 shall be as of that date null and void and of no effect. Anysuch city, town, city-county, or county may thereafterenact only such local law as is consistentwiththe powers and duties expressly granted to 

### and imposed upon it bychapter 9.46 RCW and which is not inconflictwith that chapter or with the rules ofthe commission. 

### The legislature gives municipalities the authority to adopt ordinances to tax pulltab operators based on fivepercentofgross gambling receipts. RCW9.46.110 provides, in pertinent part: 

### (1)The legislative authority of any county, city-county, city, or town, by local law and ordinance, and in accordance with the provisions of this 

### chapter and rules adopted under this chapter, may provide for the taxing of any gambling activityauthorized by this chapterwithin its jurisdiction,

5(Alteration in original.)No. 67523-1-1/7 

### the tax receipts to go to the county, city-county, city, or town so taxing the activity. . . . 

### (3)(e)... Atthe option ofthe county, city-county, city, or town, the taxation ofpunchboards and pull-tabs for commercial stimulant 

### operators161 may be based on gross receipts from theoperation ofthe games, and may not exceed a rate of five percent, or may be based on gross receipts from the operation ofthe games less the amount awarded as cash or merchandise prizes, and may not exceed a rate often 

### percent.171 The Gambling Act identifies a number of criminal offenses, including making a false or misleading statement or entry inthe mandatory reports thatthe pull-tab operator must submit and maintain. Forexample, under RCW 9.46.170, it is a gross misdemeanorto make a false or misleading statement or "misleading entry" in any 

### record maintained fororreport submitted to theGambling Commission.8 And under RCW 9.46.190, it is a gross misdemeanorfor "[a]ny person or association or organization operating any gambling activity" to: 

### (1) Employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; or (2) Make any untrue statement of a material fact, or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statement made not 

### misleading, inthe light ofthe circumstances underwhich said statement is made; or 6Under RCW9.46.0217, a "commercial stimulant" is an activity "operated in connectionwith an established business, with the purpose of increasing the volume ofsales of food or drink for consumption on that business premises." 7Former RCW 9.46.113 (1975) states: Any county, city or town which collects a tax on gambling activities authorized pursuant to RCW 9.46.110 shall use the revenue from such tax primarily forthe purpose of enforcement of the provisions of this chapter by the county, city or town law enforcement agency. The legislature amended RCW 9.46.113 in 2010. Lawsof2010, ch. 127, §6. As amended, RCW 9.46.113 states that a city "must"use the revenue fromtaxes received from gambling activities for"public safety." 8RCW 9.46.170 states, in pertinentpart: Whoever, in any . . . book or record required to be maintained by the commission or in any report required to be submitted to the commission, shall make any false or misleading statement, or make any false or misleading entry orwillfully fail to maintain or make any entry required to be maintained or made,

.. . shall be guiltyof a gross misdemeanor subjectto the penalty setforth in RCW 9A.20.021.No. 67523-1-1/8 

### (3) Engage in any act, practice orcourse of operation as would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person. 

### As part of the Gambling Act, the legislature gives municipalities the authority to enact an ordinance making violations ofthe Gambling Act a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor. RCW 9.46.192 provides: 

### Every city or town is authorized to enact as an ordinance of that city or town any or all of the sections of this chapterthe violation of which constitutes a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor. The city or town may 

### not modify the language of any section of this chapter inenacting such section except as necessary to put the section in the properform of an ordinance or to provide for a sentence be served inthe appropriate detention facility. The ordinance must provide for the same maximum 

### penalty for its violation as may be imposed under the section in this chapter. 

### In addition, the Gambling Actauthorizes the imposition of a lien fordelinquent 

### gamblingtaxes on personal and real property used "in the gambling activity." RCW 

### 9.46.110(4). The Gambling Act also authorizes municipalities to bring collection actions for delinquent taxes. RCW 9.46.350 states: 

### At any timewithin fiveyears after any amount of fees, interest, penalties, or tax which is imposed pursuantto this chapter, or rules adopted 

### pursuant thereto, shall become due and payable, the attorney general, on behalfof the commission, may bring a civil action inthe courts of this state, or any other state, or of the United States, to collect the amount 

### delinquent, togetherwith penalties and interest: PROVIDED, That where the tax is one imposed by a county, city or town under RCW9.46.110, any such action shall be brought by that county, city or town on its own behalf. 

### An action may be brought whether or not the person owing the amount is at such time a licensee pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. 

### Ifsuch an action is brought in the courts of this state, a writ of attachment may be issued and no bond or affidavit prior to the issuance thereofshall be required. In allactions in this state, the records of the commission, or the appropriate county, city or town, shall be prima facie evidence ofthe determination ofthe tax due or the amount ofthe delinquency.

8No. 67523-1-1/9 

### As authorized by the Gambling Act, the city ofBurien adopted Burien Municipal Code (BMC) 3.25.010 to impose on pull-taboperators a tax on fivepercentofgross 

### gambling receipts from pull-tab games. BMC 3.25.010 provides, in pertinentpart: There is hereby imposed a tax, at the rates setforth below, upon the 

### following gambling activities, when authorized byChapter9.46 RCW, and when conducted in the city: 

### (1) Fivepercentof the gross receipts from punchboards and pulltabs, as those terms are defined by RCW 9.46.0273 and the Rules and Regulations ofthe Gambling Commission. 

### The city of Federal Way also adopted a code provision imposing a fivepercenttax on 

### the gross receiptsfrom pull-tab games. FormerFederal WayCity Code (FWCC) 14- 

### 144(2002)9 states, in pertinentpart: (a) Inaccordance with RCW9.46.110, there is levied upon allpersons a 

### tax on every gambling activity permitted by this division at the following rates: 

### (3)

.... Taxation ofpunchboards or pull-tabs for commercial 

### stimulantoperators shall be at a rate offive percent on gross receipts from the operation of the games. 

### Here, the State charged Lauwith one count of theft in the firstdegree of"U.S. 

### Currency

. . .belonging to theCity ofFederalWay" and one countoftheft in the second degree of"U.S. Currency

. . . belonging to the city ofBurien." The State alleged that with intenttodeprive the cities ofproperty, Lau obtainedunauthorized control over"U.S. Currency" belonging to the cities "by colorand aid ofdeception." Theinformation alleged as follows:
COUNT I 

### I, Daniel T. Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney for King County in the name and bythe authority of the State ofWashington, do accuse

9We note that the FWCC was "re-codif[ied], reorganize^], and republish[ed]" as the Federal Way Revised Code(FWRC) in 2009, andFWCC 14-144wasrecodified as FWRC 3.40.040. See FederalWay Resolution 09-539 (Jan. 6, 2009); Federal Way Ordinance (FWO) 02-422 (Sept. 17,2002). 9No. 67523-1-1/10 

### WILLIAM LAU ofthe crime ofTheft in the First Degree, committed as follow[s]: That the defendantWILLIAM LAU, in King County, Washington, 

### during a period of timeintervening between July 1, 2005, through January 31, 2010, with intent to deprive another of property, to wit: U.S. Currency, 

### having a value inexcess of $5,000, did obtain control over such property 

### belonging to the City of FederalWay, by color and aid of deception, and did exert unauthorized control over such property; 

### Contrary to RCW9A.56.030(1)(a) and 9A.56.020(1)(a), (b), and againstthe peace and dignity of the State of Washington. COUNT II 

### And I, Daniel T. Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney aforesaid, further do accuse WILLIAM LAU ofthe crime ofTheft in the Second Degree, a crime ofthe same or similar character as another crime charged herein, 

### which crimes were part of a common scheme or plan and which crimes 

### were so closely connected in respect totime, place and occasion that it would be difficult to separate proof ofone charge from proof ofthe other, committed as follows: That the defendantWILLIAM LAU, in King County, Washington, 

### during a period oftimeintervening between January 1, 2006,through January 31, 2010,with intenttodeprive another ofproperty, towit: U.S. Currency, did obtaincontrol over such property belonging to the City of Burien, by colorand aid ofdeception, and did exertunauthorized control over such property; that the value of such property didexceed $750. Contrary to RCW 9A.56.040(1)(a) and 9A.56.020(1)(a), (b), and againstthe peace and dignity of the State of Washington. To convict Lau of theft, the State had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable 

### doubt that with the intent to deprive, he either wrongfully obtained and exerted 

### unauthorizedcontrol, or by color and aid of deception obtained control over the property 

### of the city of Federal Way and the city ofBurien. RCW 9A.56.020(1)(a), (b). RCW 9A.56.020(1) defines the crime of"theft" as follows: 

### (a) Towrongfully obtain or exert unauthorizedcontrol over the 

### property or services of another or the valuethereof, with intenttodeprive him or her ofsuch property or services; or 

### (b)By color or aid of deception to obtaincontrol over the property or services of another or the value thereof, with intent to deprive him or her of such property or services.

10No. 67523-1-1/11 The meaning of "property ofanother" is derived from the definition of "owner." State v. Pike. 118 Wn.2d 585, 589, 826 P.2d 152 (1992). The definition of "owner" "establishes the level ofinterest necessary to claim a right to property." Pike, 118 Wn.2d at 589. The statute defines "owner" as "a person, otherthan the actor, who has possession of or any other interest in the property or services involved, and without whose consent the actor has no authority to exert control over the property or services." 

### RCW 9A.56.010(11).10 Lau relies on Pike to argue the State did not prove the cities had a property interest inthe gross gambling receipts from pull-tab sales. The court in Pike held that in order "to constitute the property of another, the item must be one in which another person has an interest, and the defendant may not lawfullyexert control overthe item absent the permission of that other person." Pike, 118 Wn.2d at 590. The court also held that an owner could commit theft ofproperty he had legal title to ifthe State proved there was another superior possessory interest in the property. [E]ven where a person possesses legal title to a given item, theft can occur ifthat person takes the item from another who has a superior possessory interest. Liens, pledges, and bailments all have the potential to satisfy the theft statute by creating a superior possessory interest in another as against the owner ofthe item.
Pike. 118Wn.2dat590. The court in Pike concluded that because the mechanic did not comply with the statutory lien provisions of the Automotive Repair Act, chapter46.71 RCW, the owner's failure to pay for repairs resulted in an unsecured contractual claim but not a



### 10We note thelegislature renumbered thesubsections ofRCW 9A.56.010 in 2011. Lawsof 2011, ch. 164, § 2. Because the definition of "owner" did not change, we cite to the statute currently in effect. 11No. 67523-1-1/12
possessory interest that would support a theft conviction. Pike, 118 Wn.2d at 594-95. As with all nonsecured contractual debts, the debt Pike owes [the mechanic] for the cost of repairs is a personal debt; it is not chargeable to any particular piece of property. State v. Polzin, 197 Wash. 612, 618, 85 P.2d 1057 (1939). Such a general contractual debt cannot support a theft conviction. First, itdoes not satisfy the "property ofanother" element because [the mechanic] has no possessory interest in the car, only a right to recover damages from Pike in a civillawsuit. Second, mere breach of a contractual obligation to pay does not create criminal liabilityabsent a specific statute, or contractual fraud.
Pike. 118Wn.2dat595. Here, the State did not present any evidence that Lau could not lawfully exert control over the gross gambling receipts without the permission ofthe cities orthat the cities had a superior possessory interest in the gross gambling receipts. The only 

### evidence the State presented to establish an ownership interest inthe gross gambling receipts was the testimony of Huynh, the financial analyst for the city of Federal Way, and Coleman, the accounting managerfor the city ofBurien. 

### Huynh testified that Federal Way taxed pull-tab gross gambling receipts at five percent, did not allow deductions, and that gross gambling receipts did not include "bounced checks or stolen things." Likewise, Coleman testified that Burien imposed a tax of five percent on each dollar received for the sale of pull-tabs. If it's a $1 pull-tab and an individual comes in and buys one, the tax on 

### that would be five percent, which would become

- be coming to the City. So five percent of each dollar received on the sale ofpull-tabs. 

### Relying heavily on State v. Monk, 42 Wn. App. 320, 711 P.2d 365 (1985), the State argues that Lau obtained control overthe property ofthe cities by

12No. 67523-1-1/13 

### "creating]... a false impression ofwhat that five percentfigure was" and "[taking] control of the cities' right to payment ofthe tax bill." Monkdoes not support the State's argument. 

### In Monk, a jury convicted a cityemployee of theft by deception. The employee transferred her utility account to a file designated forcustomers inbankruptcy to avoid paying her bill. Monk, 42 Wn. App. at 321. On appeal, the court rejected the 

### employee's argument that the State failed to prove she exerted unauthorized control over the property ofanother. Monk, 42 Wn. App. at 323. Identifying the property as the 

### city's account receivable, the court held that the defendant "effectively obtained control over the City's right to payment by 'hiding'her account." Monk, 42 Wn. App. at 322-23. The court affirmed the conviction for theft by deception on the grounds that the account 

### receivable was not "lawfully in [the employee's] possession." The property here—the account receivable—was not lawfully in Ms. 

### Monk's possession. In orderto transfer her account, officeprocedure required her to secure the signed approval ofone of her supervisors. She did not do so. These circumstances are sufficient to constitute

. . . proofof theft by deception. 

### Monk, 42 Wn. App. at 323. Unlike inMonk, there is no evidence in this case that the 

### gross gambling receipts constituted an account receivable or that either the city of Federal Way or the city of Burien had an ownership interest in the gross gambling receipts. The State also cites Porcelli v. United States, 303 F.3d 452 (2nd Cir. 2002), for 

### the proposition that the cities' rightto paymentestablishes ownership under the theft
statute. Porcelli is inapposite. 

### In Porcelli, the defendant was convicted offiling fraudulent New YorkState sales

13No. 67523-1-1/14

tax returns for gas stations owned by his corporations under the federal mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. section 1341, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. section 1962(c). Porcelli, 303 F.3d at 453. On appeal, the defendant argued that because uncollected and unremitted sales taxes were not the property ofthe state under New York law, there was no basis for his mail fraud conviction. Porcelli, 303 F.3d at 453. In affirming the conviction, the court specifically points out that the defendant was not charged with theft ofthe state's property but with "underreporting a sales tax obligation so as to reduce his payment of sales taxes" in violation ofthe mail fraud statute's prohibition on " 'any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means offalse or fraudulent pretenses.'" Porcelli, 303 F.3d at 456-57 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1341). 

### Finally, the State argues in passing that the city of Burien and the city of Federal Way had a superior possessory interest in the gross gambling receipts under RCW 9.46.110(4). Butthe State charged Lau withtheft of "U.S. Currency" belonging to the cities. The State did not charge Lau with theft of "personal and real property used in the gambling activity," and presented no evidence that the cities had a lien. RCW 9.46.110(4). RCW 9.46.110(4) provides: 

### Taxes imposed underthis chapter become a lien upon personal and real 

### property used in the gambling activity in the same manner as provided for under RCW 84.60.010.[11] The lien shall attach on the date the tax

11 RCW 84.60.010 provides: All taxes and levies which may hereafter be lawfullyimposed or assessed shall be and they are hereby declared to be a lien respectively upon the real and personal property upon which they may hereafter be imposed or assessed, which liens shall include all charges and expenses of and concerning the said taxes which, by the provisions of this title, are directed to be made. The said lien shall have priority to and shall be fully paid and satisfied before any recognizance, mortgage, judgment, debt, obligation or responsibility to or with which said real and personal property may become charged or liable. 14No. 67523-1-1/15 becomes due and shall relate back and have priority against real and personal property to the same extent as ad valorem taxes. 

### Because the State did not prove that Lau wrongfully obtained the property of another or a superior interest inthe gross gambling receipts, we reverse.

WE CONCUR: 

# So Q^i/^CL., cy

i<^^£ <Z. <j ^d&i£x ( s . 

# 3

15