John Binns, Partner at BCL Solicitors LLP says it’s high
stakes when it comes to the UK finally clearing a pathway towards
cannabis investments
Businesses that work in the cannabis industry are accustomed to
regulatory issues, but the UK’s rules are both stricter than
those of other jurisdictions, and more complicated than they need
to be. As an increasing number of businesses seek to list in the
UK, the Financial Conduct Authority’s consultation on a new
Technical Note (following an earlier Statement on its approach),
covering the issues they will face in their applications is
certainly welcome. But there are four areas in which it might
consider going further.
Involvement from other agencies
The first is to involve other agencies in its approach, given
that overlapping issues are being considered by the Home Office
(which licences cannabis activities), the National Crime Agency
[which receives requests for consent under the Proceeds of Crime
Act 2002 (POCA)], and the Medicines and Healthcare products
Regulatory Agency (MHRA) [which regulates medicines, including
Cannabis-Based Products for Medicinal use in humans (CBPMs)].
While the FCA would rely on the Home Office and the MHRA to deal
with the question of UK-based CBPMs, it seems keen to make its own
assessment with respect to equivalents overseas. The problem is
that its assessment is, essentially, about whether the business
would be licensed if it happened in the UK – so it is not
hard to see why some consistency of approach between UK agencies
would be desirable. In the absence of a single cannabis-regulating
agency here, it is incumbent on these agencies to work
together.
A margin of appreciation
The central recommendation of the Note is that businesses
wishing to list should obtain a legal opinion to cover, among other
things, the question of whether their overseas activities would be
lawful in the UK. Because different jurisdictions have different
legal systems and different ways of licensing CBPMs, the exercise
will often be one of finding approximate equivalence and ‘best
fit’, allowing for some leeway in terms of what other
jurisdictions allow and require. In other legal contexts, this
would be called a ‘margin of appreciation’, a recognition
that lawmakers in other countries are entitled to do things in
their own way, provided they fit broadly within a minimum set of
requirements. In due course, we will find out how the FCA will
apply these standards, but in the meantime, it will need those
legal opinions to get to the heart of the matter.
A pragmatic approach to CBD
One issue on which UK law is arguably lagging very far behind
industry practice is the regulation of cannabidiol (CBD). Most
products that contain CBD are also likely to contain THC, in
‘trace’ amounts. In most jurisdictions, the issue is the
percentage of THC present – a 0.2% threshold is often used
– but this is not the case in the UK. Instead, sales of CBD
products in small containers are either allowed or tolerated, while
importation, manufacturing, and wholesale of it in large containers
are not.
By talking about ‘cannabis oil’ businesses as potential
candidates for listing, the FCA’s earlier Statement implied
that it might take a pragmatic approach. The Note seems to row back
on that, by acknowledging only that ‘pure’ CBD and
CBD-based CBPMs would be considered lawful. So, where does that
leave businesses that deal with importation, manufacture, or
wholesale of low-THC, non-medicinal, CBD? A pragmatic approach,
perhaps simply adopting the 0.2% threshold, would be both possible
and welcome, and point the way for other agencies to follow.
Clarity on the ‘recreational’ market
Finally, as anticipated in the earlier Statement, the Note takes
a predictably absolutist approach to the ‘recreational’
market, although it is not yet clear how far this will be taken.
What if, for example, an overseas business deals mainly with CBPMs,
but has a product line containing low-THC CBD? What if a business
that now exclusively sells medicinal products previously held a
wellness subsidiary, leaving it with a POCA problem?
Unless the definition of ‘recreational cannabis’ imports
a THC threshold (as above), and/or the prohibition applies only to
a business that is current, this is already too strict. Perhaps the
better approach is for the FCA, having made the general point that
recreational cannabis is not (for now) to be encouraged, to keep an
open mind on where the margins of that concept might be.
Some signs of progress
The list of areas where the Note might not be considered perfect
should not discourage active engagement on the detail: even on the
cautious basis that seems to be proposed, this represents
significant progress for an industry that the UK’s legal and
financial establishment has not so far seemed keen to welcome. As
the FCA formulates its policy, banks become more open-minded and
professional advisers come on board, this is a sector of the UK
industry that is heading in the right direction.
Originally Published by Open Access Government
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
Credit: Source link
