As we blogged about last week, the SAFE Banking Act is trying to claw its way back from the dead during this lame duck session of Congress. Interestingly, on December 2, Punchbowl News reported that the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a memo outlining its "issues" with the SAFE Banking Act. Here's the memo ("Memo").
Whenever we get a cannabis-related memo from DOJ, I get pretty excited. Mainly because we get a tiny peak into the minds of enforcement and what their priorities are at the time. This five-page memo is of particular import because it deals with cannabis financial crimes and enforcement. Unless you've been living under a rock, you know that two of the biggest problems for the cannabis industry overall are access to financial institutions and I.R.C. Section 280E.
DOJ "issues"
La Ley SAFE Banking no legaliza el cannabis ni modifica su clasificación en la Ley de Sustancias Controladas. Teniendo esto en cuenta, el memorándum comienza diciendo que
Dado que la marihuana seguiría siendo ilegal según la legislación federal, el Congreso debería velar por que las medidas destinadas a facilitar el acceso a los servicios financieros a las empresas autorizadas por los estados no supongan, de forma involuntaria, un obstáculo para la persecución de otras actividades ilícitas o de aquellas relacionadas con el blanqueo de capitales procedentes de otras drogas ilegales o de ventas de marihuana que no cumplan los requisitos estatales
The DOJ's first beef then is that the bill would technically immunize from prosecution cannabis businesses or providers that fall into certain legal classifications under the Act, rather than examining the types of legal or illegal activities in which those entities are engaged. The example provided in the Memo is that the DOJ could not go after a "cannabis-related legitimate business" that's engaged in state licensed commercial cannabis activities but also fraud. Luckily, the DOJ instructs Congress in the Memo on how to fix the offending language by suggesting that immunity be limited to:
"the state-legal activities in which entities engage (again, ensuring those activities are in conformity with state law), rather than basing it on their classification as a particular business type, i.e., a 'cannabis-related legitimate business' or a marijuana-related 'service provider.'"
The DOJ also thinks that the SAFE Banking Act is too broadly drafted to immunize cannabis companies from existing money laundering statutes, basically for the same reasons above. The DOJ also bemoans the fact that such a broad protection would put an additional burden on prosecutors to show the difference between legal and illegal activities in the cannabis trade. The DOJ provides the example that "a marijuana-related business could be laundering proceeds from fentanyl sales on the side, or from marijuana sales conducted outside of the state regulatory framework", and that the SAFE Banking Act, as written, wouldn't allow law enforcement or prosecutors to do their jobs effectively.
The DOJ also takes issue with the fact that the SAFE Banking Act doesn't do much to solve the issue of total compliance for financial institutions with the Bank Secrecy Act, existing anti-money laundering laws, and countering-the-financing regulations to collect—or verify—information demonstrating that a particular business is operating in accordance with applicable state law. This is definitely an issue with these piecemeal cannabis bills: there will always be collateral effects regarding compliance with other, existing federal laws. The DOJ also opined that there will be forfeiture issues related to depository institutions' interests in collateral, because the SAFE Banking Act doesn't also amend current forfeiture laws.
Comentarios técnicos
Helpfully, the DOJ then trots out a list of technical assistance comments, pointing out to lawmakers where legal and interpretive inconsistencies will exist if the SAFE Banking Act is passed "as-is". These mainly touch on things like definitions in the bill, the use of the term "cannabis" versus "marijuana" as compared to existing federal laws, and enforcement ambiguities.
Motivo de especial preocupación
Hacia el final del memorándum, el Departamento de Justicia afirma que
La lectura conjunta de los artículos 3 y 14 («Definiciones») da lugar a incertidumbres interpretativas. La definición de «negocio legítimo relacionado con el cannabis» que figura en
es ambigua. Por ejemplo, este artículo no dice nada sobre cómo determinarán los estados el cumplimiento de la legislación estatal ni qué ocurre cuando las leyes estatales entran en conflicto —por ejemplo, algunos estados tienen restricciones diferentes sobre el transporte de marihuana dentro o fuera del estado, o regímenes distintos de registro y cumplimiento—. Tampoco explica cómo abordar las declaraciones fraudulentas de supuesto cumplimiento de las leyes estatales (muchos estados aún no cuentan con la capacidad burocrática para garantizar el pleno cumplimiento, y la DEA dispone de información de inteligencia policial que demuestra que las organizaciones criminales están explotando la industria de la marihuana en los estados donde esta está legalizada).
Se trata de una observación algo preocupante por parte del Departamento de Justicia, pero probablemente acertada.
¿Y ahora qué pasa?
Without a doubt, Congress will listen to the DOJ on technical changes to the bill. The fact that the DOJ isn't entirely fighting the legislation is a good development. On the whole, the suggested changes are mostly helpful (from a legal/technical standpoint to avoid conflict) and they strike a compromise in that the DOJ still needs to be able to do its job if the SAFE Banking Act passes. To date, politics have played a big role in the SAFE Banking Act going nowhere, but now that we have DOJ weigh-in on the bill, we may actually be crossing into a phase of serious consideration. So, stay tuned.
