Joint Defense: Steps Cannabis Companies Can Take Now To Protect Themselves Against Criminal Enforcement Actions in the New York Cannabis Market
There are a number of compliance steps that cannabis companies can take now to minimize the chances of unlawful diversion from their companies.
October 25, 2021 at 11:00 AM
10 minute read
Continued criminal enforcement in the New York cannabis market is a virtual certainty. There will be strong financial incentives built into the legal cannabis market to divert product to the illegal market; for some market participants, that potential gain will outweigh the risk of getting caught. Cannabis companies knowingly engaged in such diversion could face prosecution not only under state law, but also federal law, including both existing statutes and major proposed reform bills. To see how criminal anti-diversion enforcement is likely to play out in their market, cannabis companies need only look to similar, highly regulated markets, such as the pharmaceutical and tobacco industries. Authorities have brought criminal charges against companies, owners and employees that have knowingly failed to live up to their compliance obligations. With that experience as a guide, there are a number of compliance steps that cannabis companies can take now to minimize the chances of unlawful diversion from their companies.
Incentives for Diversion in the New York Cannabis Market
Once the legal cannabis market is operating in New York, the illicit market still is expected to continue functioning for years, with prices well below the legal market. See Will Yakowicz, "Why New York Legalizing Recreational Cannabis Won't Kill the Illicit Market," Forbes.com (March 19, 2021); "Assessment of the Potential Impact of Regulated Marijuana in New York State," N.Y. Dep't of Health (July 2018) (DOH Assessment), at 16-21. This price disparity is explained, at least in part, by taxes and regulatory costs. See id. New York has imposed substantial taxes on cannabis, and taxes will increase if cannabis is federally legalized. There are also significant regulatory costs in the legal market. For example, New York imposes strict requirements for testing and packaging of cannabis. Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA) §§81-82. These taxes and regulatory costs ultimately increase the prices that consumers pay. The illicit market has no such taxes or regulation to drive up prices, so participants in the illegal market can undercut the price of cannabis in the legal market.
There lies the temptation for unlawful diversion, which for some will overcome the risk associated with violating the law. To dodge taxes or regulatory costs that eat into profits—or simply to sell excess legal supply—some legal market participants will sell a portion of their product in the illegal market. Alternatively, in a scheme known as inversion, some may attempt to inject illegal cannabis into the legal market, fraudulently selling it as licensed cannabis and avoiding taxes and costs up the distribution chain. These are just some examples of the unlawful schemes likely to occur in New York. Cf. "Illicit Tobacco—Various Schemes are Used to Evade Taxes and Fees," U.S. Government Accountability Office (March 2011) (GAO Report). And, some who do not directly participate in such schemes may be tempted to turn a blind eye to them if it increases their bottom line.
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
© 2025 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 AllJudgment of Partition and Sale Vacated for Failure To Comply With Heirs Act: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Veritext Legal Solutions Announces the Past Acquisitions of Three Alternative Dispute Resolution Firms
- 2Sarno da Costa D’Aniello Maceri LLC Announces Addition of New Office in Eatontown, NJ, and Named Partner
- 3LSU General Counsel Quits Amid Fracas Over First Amendment Rights of Law Professor
- 4An Eye on ‘De-Risking’: Chewing on Hot Topics in Litigation Funding With Jeffery Lula of GLS Capital
- 5Arguing Class Actions: With Friends Like These...
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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