Marijuana laws fodder for compliance mayhem
The chasm dividing those on opposite sides of the marijuana legalization debate has seemingly grown wider in past years in the U.S. because of various states' rulings legalizing the substance despite its federal prohibition.
February 18, 2014 at 04:16 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The chasm dividing those on opposite sides of the marijuana legalization debate has seemingly grown wider in past years in the U.S. because of various states' rulings legalizing the substance despite its federal prohibition. Naturally, with any state regulation passed against federal, there are bound to be compliance issues, especially regarding a substance that is the center of such hot debate.
Compliance heavily factors into companies that dispense marijuana — whether for recreational or medical use. The Wall Street Journal reports that a number of companies are wrestling with various state-based regulations in light of complying with federal ones. While they have seen room to grow in light of the legalization of marijuana in certain states, they also have unique challenges.
Robert Frichtel, a chief executive of Advanced Cannabis Solutions based in Colorado, highlighted the problem for companies dealing with marijuana dispensing: “Any business accepting a payment from a licensed, regulated marijuana business at the state level could in theory get caught up in money laundering. That includes any attorney, insurance providers, even landlords like us who are building owners that lease to the industry,”
Advanced Cannabis Solutions provides financing and consulting services within the marijuana dispensing industry. While it does not grow or directly dispense marijuana itself, the company must be aware of the risks of aiding and financially dealing with companies whose product is technically federally illegal. And much of the risk comes from the inability to access proper banking procedures, as many in the industry find themselves at a disadvantage even for having the term “marijuana” associated with their business. The hope is that the Department of Justice overhauls the process by which companies associated with compliance, financial, or consulting services with marijuana-based companies are prosecuted, and that it eventually restructures the money laundering rules in the U.S. to make it easier for those in the industry to do business.
Further reading:
The chasm dividing those on opposite sides of the marijuana legalization debate has seemingly grown wider in past years in the U.S. because of various states' rulings legalizing the substance despite its federal prohibition. Naturally, with any state regulation passed against federal, there are bound to be compliance issues, especially regarding a substance that is the center of such hot debate.
Compliance heavily factors into companies that dispense marijuana — whether for recreational or medical use. The Wall Street Journal reports that a number of companies are wrestling with various state-based regulations in light of complying with federal ones. While they have seen room to grow in light of the legalization of marijuana in certain states, they also have unique challenges.
Robert Frichtel, a chief executive of Advanced Cannabis Solutions based in Colorado, highlighted the problem for companies dealing with marijuana dispensing: “Any business accepting a payment from a licensed, regulated marijuana business at the state level could in theory get caught up in money laundering. That includes any attorney, insurance providers, even landlords like us who are building owners that lease to the industry,”
Advanced Cannabis Solutions provides financing and consulting services within the marijuana dispensing industry. While it does not grow or directly dispense marijuana itself, the company must be aware of the risks of aiding and financially dealing with companies whose product is technically federally illegal. And much of the risk comes from the inability to access proper banking procedures, as many in the industry find themselves at a disadvantage even for having the term “marijuana” associated with their business. The hope is that the Department of Justice overhauls the process by which companies associated with compliance, financial, or consulting services with marijuana-based companies are prosecuted, and that it eventually restructures the money laundering rules in the U.S. to make it easier for those in the industry to do business.
Further reading:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPolicy Wonks' Obsession: What Will Tuesday's Election Mean for FTC Firebrand Khan?
6 minute readThe FTC's Rebecca Slaughter Wants Fair Competition, and a Good Night's Sleep
New Merger-Review Process Could Doom Some Deals, Add Headaches, Subjectivity to Others
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250