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
© 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 AllAs 'Red Hot' 2024 for Legal Industry Comes to Close, Leaders Reflect and Share Expectations for Next Year
7 minute read'So Many Firms' Have Yet to Announce Associate Bonuses, Underlining Big Law's Uneven Approach
5 minute readTikTok’s ‘Blackout Challenge’ Confronts the Limits of CDA Section 230 Immunity
6 minute readEnemy of the State: Foreign Sovereign Immunity and Criminal Prosecutions after ‘Halkbank’
10 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
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