The Feds' Scary Reassurances to Banks That Deal With State-Licensed Marijuana Businesses

On Friday, as J.D. Tuccille noted, the Treasury Department and the Justice Department issued guidelines for banks that do business with state-licensed marijuana suppliers. According to Attorney General Eric Holder, the aim of the memos is to reassure financial institutions that are leery of accepting cannabusinesses as customers because they worry it will attract unwanted attention from federal regulators and prosecutors. But as with the August 29 memo in which Deputy Attorey General James Cole said that prosecuting properly regulated marijuana growers and sellers would not be a high priority, there are no guarantees, and that fact is likely to deter traditionally cautious banks more than plucky cannabis entrepreneurs.

The Treasury memo, issued by the department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), says the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) requires financial institutions to file "suspicious activity reports" (SARs) for all marijuana businesses. But FinCEN draws a distinction between marijuana businesses that violate state law or implicate one of the Justice Department's "enforcement priorities" and marijuana businesses that do neither. The former merit "marijuana priority" reports, while the latter fall into a newly invented "marijuana limited" category. According to the memo, this distinction "aligns the information provided by financial institutions in BSA reports with federal and state law enforcement priorities."

What are those priorities? Cole's August 29 memo lists eight: 1) "preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors," 2) "preventing the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some form to other states," 3) "preventing drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use," 4) "preventing the growing of marijuana on public lands," 5) "preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property," 6) "preventing revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises," 7) "preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana," and 8) "preventing state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs." At the end of the memo, Cole adds that the feds might also intervene for other, unspecified reasons. 

The FinCEN memo lists "red flags" that suggest a marijuana business deserves special scrutiny, including "international or interstate activity," an inability to "demonstrate the legitimate source of significant outside investments," signs that the business is "using a state-licensed marijuana-related business as a front or pretext to launder money derived from other criminal activity," and "negative information, such as a criminal record, involvement in the illegal purchase or sale of drugs, violence, or other potential connections to illicit activity." Such red flags are supposed to inform banks' decisions about which customers to reject or drop as well as which sort of SAR to file. FinCEN warns that the red flags it mentions "do not constitute an exhaustive list." Although FinCEN says its advice "should enhance the availability of financial services for, and the financial transparency of, marijuana-related businesses," it never actually says banks that follow the guidelines need not worry about getting into trouble with regulators.

The Justice Department memo that Cole released on Friday, which like his August 29 memo is addressed to U.S. attorneys, has a similar limitation. He notes that the earlier memo "did not specifically address what, if any, impact it would have on certain financial crimes for which marijuana-related conduct is a predicate," such as money laundering or failure to file SARs. The new memo clarifies that prosecution decisions related to those crimes "should be subject to the same consideration and prioritization" as prosecution decisions related to marijuana trafficking. Again, the feds are not making any promises. Here is the closest Cole comes: "If a financial institution or individual offers services to a marijuana-related business whose activities do not implicate any of the eight priority factors, prosecution for these offenses may not be appropriate." Then again, it may! Like Cole's August 29 memo, this one closes with a caveat that is not exactly reassuring: "Nothing herein precludes investigation or prosecution, even in the absence of any one of the factors listed above, in particular circumstances where investigation and prosecution otherwise serves an important federal interest." 

This weak tea may be pretty much the best that the Obama administration can do under current law, which is why bankers are calling for congressional action to address the tax, regulatory, and public safety issues raised by forcing marijuana suppliers to deal exclusively in cash. In a press release issued on Friday, Don Childears, president of the Colorado Bankers Association (CBA), does not sound grateful for the new guidance:

After a series of red lights, we expected this guidance to be a yellow one. This isn't close to that. At best, this amounts to "serve these customers at your own risk," and it emphasizes all of the risks. This light is red.

The CBA complains that the guidance from FinCEN and the Justice Department "reiterates reasons for prosecution and is simply a modified reporting system for banks to use," a system that "imposes a heavy burden on them to know and control their customers' activities, and those of their [customers'] customers." The CBA says "no bank can comply" with those expectations. Childears concludes that "an act of Congress is the only way to solve this problem." The Marijuana Businesses Access to Banking Act, introduced last summer by Reps. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.) and Denny Heck (D-Wash.), would protect banks that deal with state-legal marijuana businesses from criminal investigation or prosecution and from regulatory repercussions, including loss of federal deposit insurance.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Oh, please. The Obama Administration all but guarantees it. If you like your bank doing business with cannabis entrepreneurs, you can keep doing it.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Kick the football, Charlie Brown!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Getting that money into bank accounts makes it easier to seize.

  • Swiss Servator, mehr Käse!||

    ^THIS^

  • juris imprudent||

    Jusssssssst trussssssssssssssst ussssssssssss.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "Nothing herein precludes investigation or prosecution, even in the absence of any one of the factors listed above, in particular circumstances where investigation and prosecution otherwise serves an important federal interest."

    Who could possibly see this as anything but a green light? It's tantamount to full,scale legalization.

    "Live long, and prosper, bankers."

  • Rich||

    "important federal interest"

    Ha! They blew it! It should read "*compelling* federal interest"!

  • nuffcedmcgreevey||

    Feds: "We're interested, and we're compelling you."

  • Almanian!||

    The check's in the mail.
    I won't cum in your mouth.
    Well...I ain't got no money RIGHT NOW....but me and Leroy go WAY back, an' he's gonna loan me fitty till I can - you know - get more CAYSH....so....I'm good for the loan, know whum sayin'?
    You're being sent via railroad to a camp - for your protection.

    You can trust me - I'm from the government.

  • Mainer2||

    It's only a cold sore.

  • Loki||

    Just the tip, and only for a couple of seconds.

  • Outlaw||

    Alright, who forgot to post the Morning Links?

    Also, CT newspaper editorial calls for cracking down on the people who haven't registered their "assault weapons":

    http://articles.courant.com/20.....lt-weapons

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Alright, who forgot to post the Morning Links?

    Whoever it is deserves a raise.

  • Pelosi's Rabbit||

    First!

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    ...a law that was seen as a speedy and hopefully effective response by Connecticut to mass shootings...

    Keep hoping, cupcake.

    ...it's possible that many gun owners are unaware of their obligation to register military-style assault weapons...

    Highly unlikely. I'd offer that gun owners are acutely aware of their obligations to register their guns. However, they are also acutely aware of the purpose of the CT gun registry:

    Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.

    Next step will be confiscation.Which is all the gun grabbers ever wanted anyway.

    Fuck them.

  • Brett L||

    Shoot a couple of these guys and see if they still want to play. Its okay when the State does it, right?

  • Floridian||

    Next step will be confiscation.Which is all the gun grabbers ever wanted anyway.

    I will be watching closely to see how confiscation goes. I will be disappointed it this doesn't end in a few dead state officers as they try to violate the people's 2A rights.

  • juris imprudent||

    "Get used to disappointment"

  • Atanarjuat||

    Or local sheriffs declining to confiscate weapons.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    CT newspaper editorial calls for cracking down on the people who haven't registered their "assault weapons"

    Deranged gun nuts are ruining this once-great land.

  • Rich||

    If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.

    You know, it'd be great if the "public information campaign" proposed by the Courant made this *abundantly* clear.

  • LarryA||

    Well, except we need a strong reporter shield law. Constitutional rights, y'know.
    [sarc]

  • The Late P Brooks||

    But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.

    When that fails, the cops can stake out gun shops and ranges and record license plate numbers, and SWAT the homes of the owners of those vehicles.

    Since we know they are dangerous anti-government radicals, nighttime dynamic entry raids should be employed in the interest of OFFICER SAFETY.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    That's so cute, Randian.

    Maybe you should start your own blog. Police One could stand some competition.

  • Mainer2||

    The Obama administration is criticized for creating uncertainty for businesses. I think that's unfair. Obama will always fuck you over when it's politically convenient. See...nothing uncertain about that.

  • Jerryskids||

    Tell me we still live under the rule of law. When the law can mean whatever the authorities choose to say it means, who is to say that the law giving authority to the authorities is any less amenable to interpretation?

    "...whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence. Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty.”

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    OT
    Watching a History Channel doc about Woodrow Wilson. So far Wilson being hailed as a visionary hero being obstructed by rethuglicans. They even played evil backround music when talking about them.

  • ||

    This is entirely unsurprising. What is attempted to be accomplished by threat of force is always ten times more noble to these people than what is actually accomplished voluntarily.

  • GILMORE||

    "Nothing herein precludes investigation or prosecution, even in the absence of any one of the factors listed above, in particular circumstances where investigation and prosecution otherwise serves an important federal interest."

    Tony Montana: You know what capitalism is? Getting fucked!

  • LarryA||

    Short version: "It's legal to serve cannibusiness until the prosecutor needs some politipoints."

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement