Thomas P. Gross, B.S., M.S., J.D. Partner, Cogent Law Firm

TUESDAY, AUGUST 20TH, 2025 12:00 – 1:00 PM EST LIVE WEBINAR + Q&A VIRTUAL EVENT

Explore how legal, IT, and payment systems can work together to drive profitability and reduce risk in today’s banking landscape. Event Description: A must-attend webinar for financial institutions, credit unions, and banks navigating the challenges of 2025. Learn how combining legal strategy, IT infrastructure, and modern payment systems can drive profitability while minimizing compliance and cyber risks. Join three industry experts for a tactical discussion on what’s working (and what’s not) when it comes to Risk and compliance management, IT modernization, revenue-generating tools for FIs and cannabis banking strategy. Topics Covered: How to identify and close profitability gaps Real risks to watch in today’s regulatory and tech environment Strategies for building compliant, revenue-positive CRB programs Tools and services that drive operational efficiency Mini case studies from financial institutions who’ve made the leap Who Should Watch? Credit Union & Community Bank Executives Compliance, Risk, and Legal Teams IT, Operations & Security Leaders Anyone exploring cannabis or high-risk banking strategies Meet the Speakers: Daniel Garedew Founder, Merchant Services United Daniel partners with banks, credit unions, and small businesses to reduce payment processing costs, optimize POS and ATM setups, and boost fee-based income. He’s known for his hands-on support and trusted relationships with financial institutions and community partners across the DMV region. Michael Drobnis CEO, OptfinITy Michael brings 30+ years of tech leadership, with deep expertise in cybersecurity, regulatory compliance (FFIEC, PCI), and managed IT services for financial institutions. Under his leadership, OptfinITy has been nationally recognized for helping FIs modernize infrastructure while staying secure. Chris Van Dyck Partner, Cogent Law Group Chris is a former financial regulator and longtime BSA Officer with nearly a decade of experience building one of the most successful cannabis banking programs in the U.S. He now advises credit unions and banks on launching compliant, revenue-generating programs tailored to their regulatory environments.  Register now - FREE Bonus Is your Financial Institution offering, or considering offering, financial services to cannabis-related businesses (CRB’s)? Below is a checklist developed by Chris to assist your Financial Institution so that it appropriately manages the risks, and meets the regulatory expectations, of having a CRB program. Click Here to download the checklist.

Event Description: Join Tony Repanich (Shield Compliance) and Chris Van Dyck ( Cogent Law ) for a fireside chat with two of the industry's leading voices in cannabis banking. This discussion explores how financial institutions are approaching compliance, lending, risk, and strategy in an evolving regulatory landscape and what your institution needs to know to stay ahead. Topics Covered: Recent federal developments and what they mean for banks and credit unions How to approach cannabis lending opportunities Strategies for managing risk and distinguishing your CRB program What makes a CRB a good client—and how to attract them Key service offerings to stay competitive Board engagement: why it matters and how to maintain it Who Should Watch? Bank & credit union executives Compliance, BSA/AML, and risk officers Legal and policy teams Anyone exploring or managing a CRB banking program Meet the Speakers: Tony Repanich President and CEO, Shield Compliance Tony Repanich is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Shield Compliance, where he leads the company’s strategic direction and serves as the principal architect of its compliance solutions. With over 30 years of experience in the financial services industry, including two decades as a senior executive at a Washington State-based community bank, Tony brings deep expertise in banking operations, regulatory compliance, and risk management. At Shield Compliance, he leverages this experience to help financial institutions navigate the complex regulatory landscape of serving high-risk industries, including the legal cannabis industry. His leadership drives the development of purpose-built solutions that enable banks to manage risk, streamline operations, and expand into high-growth markets. Chris Van Dyck Partner, Cogent Law Group Chris is a former financial regulator and longtime BSA Officer with nearly a decade of experience building one of the most successful cannabis banking programs in the U.S. He now advises credit unions and banks on launching compliant, revenue-generating programs tailored to their regulatory environments. Register Now – Free Bonus Is your Financial Institution offering, or considering offering, financial services to cannabis-related businesses (CRB’s)? Below is a checklist developed by Chris to assist your Financial Institution so that it appropriately manages the risks, and meets the regulatory expectations, of having a CRB program. Click Here to download the checklist.

The US Supreme Court recently issued a decision in the SEC v. Jarkesy case (Jarkesy Case), which could have significant implications for the cryptocurrency industry. While the Jarkesy case doesn't directly involve cryptocurrencies, the Court’s ruling may substantially impair the SEC's ability to regulate cryptocurrencies. Briefly, the SEC began investigating Jarkesy and Patriot28 for securities fraud and misleading investors. Between 2007 and 2010, Jarkesy launched two investment funds, raising about $24 million from 120 “accredited” investors. [i] The SEC initiated an enforcement action, contending that Jarkesy violated the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 [ii] , the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [iii] , and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 [iv] , and sought civil penalties and other remedies. Supreme Court Ruling In the Jarkesy case, the Court decided a single issue: “Whether the Security and Exchange Commission’s use of in-house hearings to seek civil penalties violates the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.” [v] The Supreme Court limited the SEC’s ability to use in-house tribunals when seeking civil penalties against companies and individuals accused of securities fraud. The Court held in SEC v. Jarkesy that the Seventh Amendment entitles a defendant to a jury trial in such circumstances and that the SEC cannot force a defendant into internal administrative proceedings, which are held in front of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) instead of in federal court. [vi] Here's a breakdown of the potential impacts: Reduced SEC Enforcement Power According to the Cornerstone Research - SEC Cryptocurrency Enforcement: 2023 Update (the report), in 2023, the SEC brought 46 enforcement actions against various digital-asset market participants. This number is the highest since 2013 and a 53% increase from 2022. [vii] The report found that of the 46 enforcement actions, the SEC brought 26 litigations in U.S. federal courts and 20 administrative proceedings in 2023. The 20 administrative proceedings were more than triple the administrative proceedings from last year. Also, the SEC imposed $281 million in monetary penalties for settlements reached in 2023. [viii] The ruling in the Jarkesy case requires the SEC to bring enforcement actions in federal court with a right to a jury trial. Jury trails in federal court could slow down the SEC's enforcement process and potentially weaken its deterrent effect. The Jarkesy case challenges the SEC's discretion to choose between administrative proceedings and federal court for enforcement actions. Thus, as stated above, while the SEC administrative proceedings tripled between 2022 and 2023, the administrative proceedings will probably decrease the rest of 2024 and for the foreseeable future. Increased Uncertainty for the Crypto Industry The restriction on the SEC to levy civil penalties, could lead to increased regulatory ambiguity for cryptocurrencies. Crypto companies might find themselves entangled in more legal disputes on the federal level where litigation is more complicated and more expensive. Some crypto companies might face challenges, while others with stronger legal teams and financial resources could benefit from a less stringent regulatory environment. Investor Confidence Ambiguous regulations and regulatory enforcement may create uncertainty, making investors hesitant to risk their capital. This regulatory uncertainty could have an adverse impact on cryptocurrency prices and the overall cryptocurrency market. Combating Fraud and Abuse Clear regulations can help combat fraud, money laundering, and other illicit activities. By establishing reporting requirements and compliance standards, regulators can deter bad actors and protect consumers. In fact, that is what the SEC was doing when they investigated Jarkesy, investigating the possibility that Jarkesy was engaged in securities fraud and misleading investors. Summary The impact of the SEC v. Jarkesy ruling has not received a major response from the cryptocurrency community. That is most likely because SEC v. Jarkesy was not a cryptocurrency case; nevertheless, this case will have a major impact on the SEC’s enforcement of cryptocurrency companies which may require them to work with their attorneys to conduct a more thorough legal cost/benefit analysis if the SEC comes knocking at their door.  What are your thoughts? Please leave your comments below.

Why aren’t more companies using blockchain technology? Why aren’t more people using blockchain technology? This article will discuss these important questions of which the answers will give guidance to the mainstream adoption of blockchain technology. Bitcoin introduced the concept of blockchain technology in 2008, but more importantly, Ethereum re-introduced blockchain technology as a business solution in 2015. That was almost 10 years ago, so why hasn’t blockchain technology become mainstream? This article makes the argument that blockchain technology has to overcome several significant hurdles to become a mainstream technology. I call these blockchain challenges the SERIOUS hurdles. “SERIOUS” is an acronym for: Scalability, Energy Efficiency, Regulatory Clarity, Interoperability, Operational Applications, User Experience, and Security and Privacy. Let’s dive into each one.

Discover how a cannabis banking lawyer can help your business stay compliant and secure financial services. Call Cogent Law Group for expert advice.

Learn about the legal challenges faced by cannabis businesses seeking banking services. Discover how a specialized cannabis banking lawyer can help you navigate these complexities.

What Cannabis Related Businesses (CRBs) need to know about banking cannabis Financial Institutions have a reputation for being cautious when it comes to taking on risk, and for good reason. They are involved in one of the most highly regulated industries in the U.S., subject to numerous financial laws and regulations. In addition, they are subject to periodic examinations by their prudential regulators who examine all aspects of their business, following which they are presented with a kind of report card, providing ratings for the following categories: capital adequacy, asset quality, management, earnings, liquidity, and sensitivity. A rating of one is considered the best, and a rating of five is considered the worst. As part of their examination, examiners take a close look at how financial institutions are fulfilling their obligations under the Bank Secrecy (BSA) and its corresponding regulations. The BSA work that financial institutions perform include “knowing your customer” (or KYC), which includes initial and ongoing due diligence as well as filing Currency Transaction Reports and Suspicious Activity Reports. Failure by a financial institution to carry out its BSA obligations can result in a downgrade in its management rating, something no financial institution wishes to see. The BSA work financial institutions carry out has always been considered high-risk. The work is often labor intensive, and regulators can impose hefty fines and sanctions against financial institutions – and their employees – if they determine the financial institution’s BSA work is unsatisfactory. While BSA work is considered high-risk, this risk is amplified if a financial institution decides to offer financial services to a cannabis-related business. Why is this? First, because cannabis is still listed as a Schedule 1 substance under the Controlled Substances Act, there is a technical argument that a financial institution is “aiding and abetting” in the commission of a federal crime when it offers financial services to a cannabis related business. Second, while the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (or FinCEN) issued guidance for financial institutions electing to bank cannabis-related businesses in 2014, the guidance is less than clear in certain areas. Unlike most regulations, there are no definitions or staff commentary to guide BSA Officers or attorneys in interpreting the guidance. Because of this lack of clarity, there is a risk that examiners may interpret the FinCEN Guidance inconsistently from one exam cycle to the next or from one financial institution to the next. Furthermore, the guidance is just that: guidance. It is not codified in statute or regulation. What financial institutions need to know about CRBs The days of the “stoner-owner” are long gone. Like financial institutions, CRBs are subject to some of the strictest regulatory compliance regimes faced by any industry. Prior to receiving licensure, CRBs must be able to demonstrate that they can and will comply with the regulations to which they are subject. They therefore understand the risks and pitfalls associated with operating in a highly regulated environment and that the risks and time spent in avoiding these pitfalls come at a cost. Examples of the requirements CRB’s are subject to are as follows: (a) Seed-to-Sale Tracking Most states require cannabis businesses to use seed-to-sale tracking software, such as METRC, to track the cannabis through all stages of growth, processing and sale. Each plant is tagged with a unique identifier once it reaches a certain stage of growth. After that, everything that happens to that plant – harvest, drying/curing, packaging, transportation, and retail sale – is recorded in the seed-to-sale tracking software. This makes diversion of product very difficult. Being subject to seed- to-sale reporting requires CRBs to acquire a level of administrative sophistication. (b) Surveillance/Security requirements Financial Institutions may be hesitant to work with CRBs due to the perception that these businesses are not physically secure. There may be a concern that these businesses may be targets for criminals. In fact, CRBs are required by regulation to adopt effective security measures. The exact requirements vary by state. For example, in Massachusetts, which has a robust regulatory regime, cameras are required everywhere there is cannabis or cannabis products. Destruction of unusable cannabis must be filmed and must involve at least two employees. Security cameras are also required to record any nearby activity outside of the facility, and must be powerful enough to capture a person’s face in the dark from several yards. This video footage must be stored for 90 days and made available to regulators upon request. (c) Record-keeping Requirements CRBs often must keep certain documents at their office headquarters – employee files, background check results, financial documentation. These records must be available for inspection by the state agency at any time. (d) Product Testing Nearly all state programs require some testing of the product, whether by the business that produced it or an independent laboratory. This helps to ensure that consumers are not harmed by consumption of the product. (e) License Renewal Applications Final CRB licenses are issued for a period of one year or more. To renew a CRB license, CRBs are required to provide information on its operations and compliance with the agency’s regulations. There is also typically a fee involved. This renewal process ensures that the state agency “checks in” on the CRBs periodically, and that the CRBs are mindful of the fact that they will have to submit certain information each year. Misplaced concerns about CRB Owners Many outside the cannabis industry wrongly believe that cannabis business owners wish to disregard the rules which their businesses are subject to, and consider these rules as nothing but a burden. Rather, the individuals who work in the cannabis industry – particularly those who may have had origins in the unregulated market – strongly desire to operate a state-legal business, and understand that compliance with regulation is part and parcel of having that status. Operating in the unregulated market carries many grave risks, from both a legal and financial perspective – and CRB owners know this. The risk of getting robbed or not getting paid is ever present. Random violence or incarceration are also real risks. As such, the ability to operate a CRB without those risks is so highly valued that the vast majority of CRB owners will do what the regulators require of them in order to operate, not because they have to, but because they know these requirements make sense for their businesses. Abiding by these regulations also carries an additional – and very important – benefit for CRB’s: the ability to operate their business, like any other business, using a bank or credit union. Having access to banking services is extremely desirable, due to the security risks and administrative complications of running a cash-only business. The vast majority of cannabis business owners will very willingly comply with what financial institutions require of them because they know that these financial institutions have chosen to operate in a very risky and highly regulated space. Adrienne Dean is a partner at Cogent Law Group specializing in cannabis law. She may be reached at (978) 770-8163 and at adean@cogentlaw.com . Chris Van Dyck is a partner at Cogent Law Group specializing in cannabis banking law. He may be reached at (207) 844-0196 and at cvandyck@cogentlaw.com .