FBI Curaleaf Report Signals Federal Scrutiny Ahead for State Marijuana Operators Seeking DEA Registration

The FBI released 64 pages and withheld 147 more, most of them protected under grand jury secrecy rules. The records were provided to The Newsground by researcher Joe Lloyd, who filed the FOIA request for FBI materials mentioning Curaleaf.

MMJ International Holdings says entry into the federal controlled-substances system may expose applicants’ ownership, financing, compliance histories and diversion controls to scrutiny far beyond state licensing reviews.

WASHINGTON, D.C. / ACCESS Newswire / August 13, 2026 / MMJ International Holdings, Inc. (“MMJ”) today said newly published reporting concerning a past FBI investigation involving Curaleaf illustrates the level of federal scrutiny that state-licensed marijuana operators could encounter as they seek registration from the Drug Enforcement Administration.

According to an August 11 investigation published by The Newsground, FBI records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show that federal authorities examined financial activity associated with Curaleaf in connection with potential money-laundering and public-corruption violations.

The report states that two federal grand juries examined the matter-one in Manhattan and another in Philadelphia-and that both proceedings ended without criminal charges.

Curaleaf told the publication that it “was never notified that it was a subject with respect to any FBI investigation” and that the company complies with ownership-disclosure requirements in every jurisdiction where it holds cannabis licenses. Curaleaf further stated that Roman Abramovich does not, to the company’s knowledge, directly or indirectly own Curaleaf shares.

No criminal wrongdoing by Curaleaf was established through the investigations described in the released records.

The significance for the broader marijuana industry is not that an investigation occurred or that it ended without charges. It is the scope of the questions federal investigators reportedly examined: beneficial ownership, foreign financing, shareholder disclosure, sources of capital, representations made in state license applications and the movement of funds through corporate entities.

Those questions may become increasingly relevant as state marijuana cultivators, manufacturers and dispensaries attempt to enter the federal controlled-substances system.

State Licenses May Not Satisfy Federal Scrutiny

A state marijuana license authorizes activity under state law. It does not establish that an operator satisfies the requirements governing registration under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

DEA registration is not intended to function as an automatic conversion of a state cannabis license into federal authorization.

The Controlled Substances Act directs DEA to determine whether registration is consistent with the public interest. Depending on the registration category, that examination can include:

• Compliance with federal, state and local law;

• Experience handling controlled substances;

• The applicant’s record of regulatory compliance;

• Criminal-conviction history involving controlled substances;

• Effective controls against diversion;

• Ownership and operational control;

• Corporate disclosures and representations;

• Sources of financing and beneficial ownership;

• Security, recordkeeping and inventory systems; and

• Other conduct relevant to public health and safety.

DEA precedent recognizes that an applicant’s past performance may be used to predict future compliance. An applicant therefore may face scrutiny extending beyond its proposed federal operations to the conduct of affiliated entities, responsible corporate officers and individuals exercising direct or indirect control.

“State licensing was never designed to substitute for federal due diligence,” said Duane Boise, chief executive officer of MMJ International Holdings. “The moment a state marijuana operator applies for DEA registration, its history, ownership, financing, disclosures and compliance systems can become federal questions. A state license does not erase the past, and Schedule III does not create immunity from scrutiny.”

Federal Authorities May Examine More Than Marijuana Operations

Federal review may extend beyond whether an applicant can secure a cultivation facility or maintain an inventory log.

For large multistate operators, relevant questions could include:

• Who provided the company’s original and subsequent capital;

• Whether all beneficial owners and controlling interests were accurately disclosed;

• Whether lenders, noteholders or offshore entities possess contractual rights amounting to control;

• Whether state applications contained complete and accurate ownership information;

• Whether marijuana-derived revenue moved through financial institutions while marijuana remained federally prohibited;

• Whether corporate restructuring obscured the source, destination or beneficial ownership of funds;

• Whether related entities participated in conduct inconsistent with the Controlled Substances Act;

• Whether senior officers knew about or approved potentially noncompliant conduct;

• Whether products moved across state lines without federal authorization;

• Whether therapeutic claims were made for products not approved by FDA; and

• Whether the applicant can be entrusted to comply with federal controlled-substances requirements after years of operating outside them.

These considerations do not mean every state marijuana company has violated federal financial laws, falsified an application or failed to disclose an owner. Nor does the existence of an investigation establish guilt.

They do mean that federal registration can expose matters that state regulators may not have examined-or may have examined under materially different standards.

Schedule III Is Not a Federal Amnesty Program

The marijuana industry has largely presented Schedule III as a gateway to federal tax relief, institutional investment, exchange access and expedited DEA registration.

But rescheduling does not repeal federal money-laundering laws. It does not retroactively authorize conduct that occurred while marijuana was in Schedule I. It does not cure inaccurate license applications, undisclosed ownership interests, unauthorized interstate transfers, defective recordkeeping or failures to disclose material corporate relationships.

It also does not require DEA to accept a state regulator’s findings without conducting an independent federal review.

State operators seeking DEA registration may therefore discover that the federal process is not simply an application for new privileges. It is an examination of whether the applicant can be entrusted with a federal controlled-substances registration.

“The industry has promoted DEA registration as though it were a rubber stamp attached to rescheduling,” Boise said. “It is not. Federal registration carries federal scrutiny. Companies asking for the benefits of federal recognition should expect federal authorities to examine who owns them, who financed them, how they operated and whether their representations were complete and accurate.”

The Curaleaf Reporting Raises Industry-Wide Questions

The Newsground investigation reports that federal agents questioned individuals involved with Curaleaf’s Pennsylvania licensing submissions and examined whether ownership and financing information had been fully disclosed.

The report further states that one former contractor told investigators she might have been instructed to exclude a shareholder’s name from an application, although she could not identify the individual. A second witness denied being instructed to omit a shareholder but reportedly expressed surprise when shown an application that did not identify Abramovich.

Curaleaf disputed the implication that it failed to comply with licensing requirements and stated that it complies with ownership-disclosure rules in all relevant jurisdictions.

The investigations described in the report ended without charges. That result must remain part of any fair account.

However, the questions reportedly asked by investigators demonstrate why ownership and financing disclosures can become central when a marijuana company seeks governmental authorization-particularly when the authorization comes from a federal agency charged with preventing diversion and enforcing the Controlled Substances Act.

Equal Federal Standards Must Apply

MMJ has spent more than eight years and more than $10 million pursuing the federal pharmaceutical pathway for cannabinoid medicines.

The company evaluated seven formulations before selecting a standardized botanical soft-gel capsule containing 5 milligrams of CBD and 2.5 milligrams of THC. Catalent Pharma Solutions manufactured thousands of finished capsules as a standardized final dosage form.

MMJ holds two Investigational New Drug files with FDA for product candidates involving Huntington’s disease and multiple sclerosis. Its Huntington’s disease candidate received Orphan Drug Designation. MMJ also established a DEA-inspected Schedule I analytical laboratory and completed extensive chemistry, manufacturing, analytical and stability work.

MMJ’s product candidates remain investigational, have not been approved by FDA and remain subject to a Full Clinical Hold. No clinical trials involving the product candidates have been completed, and no conclusions regarding safety or efficacy may be drawn.

MMJ maintains that state marijuana operators seeking the benefits of federal registration must be subjected to genuine federal review-not an expedited process that assumes years of state-authorized commercial activity establish suitability under federal law.

“MMJ has been required to document its product, facility, security, scientific purpose, manufacturing controls and regulatory compliance,” Boise said. “State marijuana companies entering the same federal system should face a review that is at least as serious. The government cannot impose exhaustive scrutiny on applicants that followed the federal pathway while granting expedited entry to companies whose ownership, financing and historical conduct have never been fully tested under federal standards.”

Schedule III may change marijuana’s legal classification. It does not eliminate the government’s obligation to protect the integrity of the federal registration system.

About MMJ International Holdings

MMJ International Holdings, Inc. is a privately held pharmaceutical company developing standardized cannabinoid-based investigational medicines through the FDA drug-development process. Through its subsidiaries, MMJ is pursuing federally compliant cultivation, manufacturing, analytical and clinical-development capabilities for potential treatments involving Huntington’s disease and multiple sclerosis.

MMJ’s product candidates are investigational, have not been approved by FDA and remain subject to a Full Clinical Hold. No clinical trials involving MMJ’s product candidates have been completed, and no conclusions regarding safety or efficacy may be drawn. MMJ is a petitioner in litigation concerning the April 2026 marijuana rescheduling order. Nothing herein constitutes an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to purchase any security.

CONTACT:
Madison Hisey
MHisey@mmjih.com
203-231-8583

SOURCE: MMJ International Holdings

View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire