Connect with us

Business

New Washington Regulations Require Cannabis Pesticide Testing

Published

on

In April 2022, new Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (LCB) cannabis pesticide testing final rules took effect. Under the rules, cannabis flower and intermediate products must undergo contaminant testing. The rationale for the is consumer safety – which seems like a legitimate concern given that recreational use cannabis producers were previously not required to test for pesticides at all. Indeed, one cannabis testing laboratory released a white paper earlier this year claiming that cannabis pesticide contamination is a serious issue in Washington, especially for concentrates that, when tested on an “off the shelf” basis in 2018, had pesticide failure rate as high as 40%.

While the LCB’s goals may be sincere, they will have some pretty significant effects on the industry. In this post, we outline what we think are the two biggest ones:

  • Cannabis pesticide testing is now required for cannabis flower and all intermediate cannabis products that are used in the creation of end products like cannabis extract and concentrates; and
  • Lots, batches, and (“theoretically” according to the LCB) harvests that fail pesticide sample testing may no longer be remediated and those that fail must be destroyed.

Strangely, while it appears that the new regulations allow for producers and processors to pay for retesting of failed samples, our understanding from the LCB is that licensees can only retest failed sample tests for Pyrethrins (a naturally occurring pesticide found in over 2,000 registered pesticide products). Licensees will have to destroy crops from all other failed sample tests without any opportunity for retesting or remediation. This is a pretty extreme rule that is likely to have massive consequences for the industry.

Additionally, the LCB has not issued guidance on the implication that a failed lot or batch would be considered to have on the harvest it came from, though it did say that theoretically failed sample tests could result in an entire harvest needing to be destroyed, depending on the test results. Neither was the LCB forthcoming in how it planned to enforce the pesticide testing requirements.

In the absence of regulatory guidance, market participants are bound to change their practices and contracts to make sure they are not the ones left without a chair when the music stops. It is hard to imagine these new rules not resulting in downstream testing compliance requirements by retailers to processors and producers. Processors in particular, says the white paper cited above “who extract cannabis oil from plant material hold the greatest risk.” Because producers alone have direct control over pesticide use and avoidance procedures pre-harvest, the burden of compliance will likely be shifted to them.

The only way for retailers and processors to ensure they are not the party left holding the (tainted) bag is to contractually require producers to prove post-harvest cannabis pesticide testing compliance before accepting delivery of product. Retailers and processors will also require producers to indemnify them, even if the producers certify that they have complaint products. There may also be implications for testing labs as well, though if they are smart, they will provide only very limited recourse for inaccurate cannabis pesticide testing. In order to ensure acceptance by processors and retailers, producers will need to determine a cost efficient and reliable system of pre and post-harvest pesticide testing. All of this is likely to have significant contractual, economic, and regulatory consequences for the entire marketplace.

Adding to what is likely to be an uncertain and potentially costly implementation period are serious infrastructure concerns with respect to producers and processors being able to access adequate cannabis pesticide testing from certified labs within the state. The white paper cited above states that “only five out of the eleven Washington state certified laboratories have the technological capability, and WSLCB authorization, for cannabis pesticide testing.” The pesticide action level rule lists 59 pesticide compounds and their acceptable thresholds, but few labs in the state have the technology or accreditation to test for all 59. The LCB did comment on the infrastructure issue and is hopeful that problem will be short term.

All market participants are likely to be impacted to some degree by these new rules and the LCB’s currently unknown enforcement policies. Making matters worse, the ability, or lack thereof, to access reliable and efficient cannabis pesticide testingfacilities raises significant compliance and enforcement issues for producers, processors, and retailers.

We will be monitoring cannabis pesticide testing developments on this issue and intend to follow this post with proposed best practices for compliance and enforcement with these new regulations.

Source: https://harrisbricken.com/cannalawblog/new-washington-regulations-require-cannabis-pesticide-testing-2/

Business

Alleged Crores Pharma Scam Mastermind Arrested from Surat

Published

on

By

After evading law enforcement for nearly 13 years, an accused linked to a large-scale pharmaceutical fraud case has been arrested by Delhi Police from Surat, Gujarat. The suspect is alleged to have orchestrated a series of financial scams involving fake identities, forged documents, and dishonoured cheques used to procure high-value pharmaceutical raw materials.

Authorities say the accused, identified as Himmat Singh Lodha, is believed to have defrauded multiple pharmaceutical companies in Delhi of goods worth approximately ₹98 lakh before disappearing and remaining underground for years.

Fake Business Deals and Dishonoured Cheques Used in Fraud

Investigators claim the accused posed as a legitimate pharmaceutical trader and placed bulk orders for expensive drug ingredients, offering post-dated cheques as payment security.

In one documented case from 2013, he allegedly obtained around 550 kilograms of Gliclazide, a diabetes-related pharmaceutical ingredient, valued at over ₹26 lakh. When suppliers attempted to encash the cheques, they were reportedly returned with the remark “account closed.”

Following the transaction, the accused allegedly vacated his office and rented residence and disappeared without settling payments. He was later declared a proclaimed offender in 2016 after repeatedly failing to appear before court proceedings. Authorities had also issued a reward for information leading to his arrest.

Multiple Identities and Repeated Fraud Pattern

Police investigations further link the accused to another cheating case dating back to 2012, where he allegedly used a fake identity, “Kailash Jain,” to obtain a large consignment of Ambroxol HCL, a pharmaceutical compound used in cough medications. The value of that consignment was estimated at around ₹72 lakh.

Officials believe the accused followed a consistent modus operandi—posing as a credible businessman, securing high-value goods on deferred payment terms, and then disappearing after delivery while shutting down business operations.

Investigators suspect that forged business records, fake company credentials, and fabricated financial histories were used to build trust with suppliers and gain access to expensive raw materials.

Multi-State Surveillance Leads to Arrest in Surat

A special Crime Branch team tracked the accused through coordinated surveillance efforts across multiple cities, including Mumbai, Ahmedabad, and Surat. After nearly a month of technical monitoring and intelligence gathering, officials located and arrested him from a residential area in Surat.

Authorities also revealed that the accused had been involved in property-related activities while staying under the radar to avoid detection.

Growing Threat of Corporate Identity Fraud

The case highlights a rising trend of organised financial fraud targeting industries that rely heavily on trust-based transactions and deferred payments. Experts note that criminals increasingly exploit gaps in corporate verification systems by using fake GST registrations, temporary offices, and forged documentation to appear legitimate.

Cybercrime and financial fraud specialists warn that such schemes are becoming more complex with the widespread availability of digital business tools, making it easier to create convincing but fraudulent corporate identities.

Experts Urge Stronger Due Diligence in High-Value Transactions

Experts, including former IPS officer and cybercrime specialist Prof. Triveni Singh, emphasize the need for stricter verification procedures in commercial dealings. He noted that relying solely on paperwork or digital business profiles can expose companies to significant financial risk.

Authorities and industry experts recommend physical verification of business operations, bank account validation, and detailed background checks before engaging in high-value or deferred-payment transactions—particularly in sectors like pharmaceuticals, where single consignments can involve transactions worth crores.

Continue Reading

Business

EU Pressure Builds on Google as Regulators Face Calls for Massive Fine Over Search Practices

Published

on

By

A growing coalition of European industry groups is intensifying pressure on regulators to take decisive action against Google over allegations of unfair search practices that could reshape competition rules across the region’s digital economy.

Investigation Under Digital Markets Act Gains Momentum

The case is being examined by the European Commission under the European Union’s landmark Digital Markets Act (DMA), introduced to curb the dominance of major technology platforms and ensure fair competition.

Launched in March 2024, the investigation focuses on whether Google has been prioritising its own services in search results, potentially disadvantaging rival businesses that rely on online visibility to reach customers.

Industry Groups Demand Swift Action

Several prominent European organizations have jointly urged regulators to conclude the probe without further delay. They argue that prolonged investigations allow alleged anti-competitive practices to continue, putting European companies—especially startups—at a disadvantage.

Signatories include the European Publishers Council, the European Magazine Media Association, the European Tech Alliance, and EU Travel Tech.

In a joint statement, these groups warned that delays in enforcement are affecting innovation, profitability, and growth prospects for regional businesses competing in digital markets.

Google Denies Allegations

Google has rejected claims of bias, stating that its search algorithms are designed to deliver the most relevant and useful results to users. The company has also proposed adjustments to address regulatory concerns.

However, critics argue that these changes are insufficient and fail to address the core issue of market dominance.

Potential Billion-Euro Penalties

If found in violation of the DMA, Google could face significant financial penalties. Under EU rules, fines can reach a substantial percentage of a company’s global turnover, potentially amounting to billions of euros.

Regulators may also impose corrective measures requiring changes to business practices, which could have long-term implications for how digital platforms operate in Europe.

Wider Implications for Big Tech

The case highlights ongoing tensions between European regulators and major U.S. technology firms. In recent years, the EU has taken a more aggressive stance in enforcing competition laws, aiming to create a level playing field for local businesses.

A final ruling against Google could set a major precedent, influencing future enforcement actions and shaping the regulatory landscape for global tech companies operating within Europe.

As scrutiny intensifies, the outcome of the investigation is expected to play a critical role in defining the future of digital competition across the European Union.

Continue Reading

AI & Technology

Amazon Faces Potential Criminal Trial in Italy Over €1.2 Billion Tax Evasion Allegations

Published

on

By

Milan: U.S. tech giant Amazon is facing the prospect of a major legal showdown in Italy, after prosecutors in Milan formally requested a court to move forward with criminal proceedings over alleged tax evasion totaling approximately ₹12,500 crore (€1.2 billion).

The case targets Amazon’s European division along with four senior executives, marking one of the most significant tax-related investigations involving a global e-commerce platform in Europe.

Trial Push Despite Multi-Million Euro Settlement

The move comes even after Amazon reached a financial settlement with Italian tax authorities in December, agreeing to pay around ₹5,500 crore (€527 million), including interest, to resolve part of the dispute.

Typically, such settlements lead to the closure of criminal investigations. However, Milan prosecutors have opted to proceed, signaling a tougher stance on alleged corporate tax violations.

A preliminary hearing is expected in the coming months, where a judge will decide whether to formally indict the company and its executives or dismiss the case.

Allegations of VAT Evasion Through Marketplace Sellers

At the center of the investigation are claims that Amazon’s platform enabled non-European Union sellers to avoid paying value-added tax (VAT) on goods sold to Italian consumers between 2019 and 2021.

Prosecutors allege that the company’s marketplace structure allowed thousands of foreign vendors—many reportedly based in China—to operate without fully disclosing their identities or tax obligations. This, authorities argue, led to substantial VAT losses for the Italian government.

Under Italian law, online platforms facilitating sales can be held partially liable if third-party sellers fail to comply with tax requirements, a key point in the prosecution’s case.

Italian Government Named as Affected Party

In their filing, prosecutors identified Italy’s Economy Ministry as the injured party, citing significant financial damage resulting from the alleged tax evasion.

Legal experts say the outcome of the case could have wide-ranging implications across the European Union, where VAT systems are harmonized and similar compliance rules apply to digital marketplaces.

Multiple Investigations Add to Pressure

The VAT probe is just one of several legal challenges facing Amazon in Italy. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office is reportedly examining additional tax-related issues covering more recent years.

Meanwhile, Milan authorities are pursuing separate investigations into alleged customs fraud linked to imports from China and whether Amazon maintained an undeclared “permanent establishment” in Italy—potentially exposing it to higher tax liabilities.

In a separate regulatory action, Italy’s data protection authority recently ordered an Amazon unit to stop using personal data from over 1,800 employees at a warehouse near Rome.

Amazon Denies Allegations

Amazon has consistently denied wrongdoing and indicated it will strongly contest the allegations in court if the case proceeds. The company has also warned that prolonged legal uncertainty could impact investor confidence and Italy’s appeal as a destination for international business.

Broader Impact on Europe’s Digital Economy

If the case moves to trial, it could become a landmark moment for the regulation of global e-commerce platforms in Europe. Governments across the region are increasingly scrutinizing how digital marketplaces handle tax compliance, especially in cross-border transactions.

With online retail continuing to expand, regulators are under mounting pressure to ensure that multinational platforms and third-party sellers adhere to the same tax rules as traditional businesses.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 420 Reports Marijuana News & Information Website | Reefer News | Cannabis News