By Sundie Seefried, founder and CEO, Safe Harbor Financial
Misconceptions around banking for cannabis businesses are common, especially concerning the potential impact of cannabis rescheduling.
Sundie Seefried
Many believe that rescheduling will unlock the banking sector for cannabis businesses, allowing them to operate like any other industry. This perception stems from the hope that reclassification under federal law will remove the legal and regulatory barriers that currently hinder cannabis businesses from accessing traditional banking services.
However, the reality is more complex. Despite the potential benefits of rescheduling, several critical factors will likely prevent a significant shift in banking practices for the cannabis sector.
Rescheduling does not equal full legalization
One of the biggest misconceptions is that rescheduling cannabis will fully legalize cannabis banking. Many assume that shifting cannabis from a Schedule I to a Schedule III substance under the Controlled Substances Act will eliminate the federal barriers that complicate financial operations for cannabis businesses.
However, rescheduling merely changes the substance’s classification within a federal framework that continues to deem it illegal. This reclassification may alter the regulatory landscape slightly, but it does not remove cannabis from the list of controlled substances.
Banks will still face significant compliance requirements and risks associated with Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) regulations, making them hesitant to offer services to the cannabis sector. Many of the banking restrictions that currently exist will persist, limiting the expected benefits of rescheduling for cannabis businesses.
Larger banks unlikely to jump in
Another common misconception is that larger banks will immediately start serving cannabis businesses once rescheduling occurs. Many believe that once cannabis is reclassified under federal law, major financial institutions will rush to enter the market. However, this assumption overlooks the persistent challenges and risks that large banks face.
Many large banks remain hesitant to engage with cannabis businesses due to ongoing challenges with federal regulations and perceived risks associated with the cannabis industry. The compliance burdens related to AML and BSA remain substantial. These regulations require extensive due diligence, monitoring and reporting for any bank dealing with cannabis-related funds, creating significant operational challenges.
The potential legal ramifications for noncompliance are severe, including hefty fines and reputational damage, which serve as strong deterrents for large financial institutions.
Additionally, the stigma associated with cannabis and the fear of inadvertently facilitating illegal activities further discourage large banks from entering the market. Despite the potential economic benefits, many large banks are likely to adopt a cautious approach, opting to wait for more comprehensive federal legalization before fully committing to serving the cannabis industry.
Banking services for cannabis businesses not unavailable
A third misconception is that cannabis businesses currently have no access to banking services and that rescheduling will be the first step in providing these services. In reality, numerous smaller banks and credit unions have been offering banking services to cannabis businesses for years.
These institutions have developed specialized compliance programs to manage the unique risks and regulatory requirements of working with the cannabis industry. Despite the challenges, these smaller financial institutions have played a critical role in supporting the cannabis sector, providing necessary services such as deposit accounts, payment processing and even loans.
The issue is not a complete lack of access but rather the high costs and complexity associated with these services due to stringent compliance requirements. Rescheduling may not significantly alleviate these burdens, as the underlying federal illegality of cannabis will still necessitate rigorous oversight and reporting.
Potential changes to FinCEN guidance
If cannabis is rescheduled to Schedule III, it could prompt updates to Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) guidance. FinCEN might update its guidance on anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism (CFT) practices specific to cannabis businesses, including revised due diligence requirements and risk assessments. Financial institutions might receive clearer or curtailed guidelines on managing this high risk market.
The fact remains that cannabis is a cash-intensive business, and that is not likely to change in the near term. Additionally, there could be updates on providing insurance and other financial services to cannabis businesses, with fewer restrictions and more standard practices.
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst
While it’s important to remain optimistic about the potential benefits of rescheduling to include a significant change in tax burdens, cannabis businesses must also prepare for the possibility that significant banking challenges will persist.
Proactive financial planning and strong banking relationships will be key to navigating the evolving landscape of cannabis banking. The ongoing federal illegality of cannabis, combined with the cautious approach of larger banks, means that smaller financial institutions will continue to be the primary banking partners for the industry.
By understanding these dynamics and preparing accordingly, cannabis businesses can better position themselves for financial success in a challenging environment.
Sundie Seefried is founder and CEO of Safe Harbor Financial (NASDAQ: SHFS), a leader in facilitating financial services and credit facilities to the regulated cannabis industry. She is a 40-year credit union industry veteran and the former CEO of Partner Colorado Credit Union (PCCU).
A Nebraska legislative committee voted 5-3 against advancing a bill designed to implement and regulate the state’s medical cannabis program, leaving legislators and advocates searching for alternative paths forward, according to the Nebraska Examiner.
The General Affairs Committee rejected Legislative Bill 677, sponsored by State Sen. Ben Hansen of Blair, during a Thursday vote where committee members declined to offer amendments to the legislation, the publication reported.
“I don’t want to shut all the doors right now, but some doors are closing, and they’re closing fast, and so we have to act,” Hansen told reporters after the vote, according to the Examiner.
Nebraska voters approved medical cannabis in November 2024, with residents legally permitted to possess up to 5 ounces with a healthcare practitioner’s recommendation since mid-December. However, the regulatory commission created by the ballot initiative lacks effective power and funding to regulate the industry.
Hansen described his legislation as “a must” for 2025 to prevent a “Wild West” scenario in the state’s cannabis market. The bill would have expanded regulatory structure through the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission and extended deadlines for regulations and licensing to allow more time for implementation, the Examiner noted.
Committee disagreements centered on proposed restrictions. A committee amendment would have prohibited smoking cannabis and the sale of flower or bud products while limiting qualified healthcare practitioners to physicians, osteopathic physicians, physician assistants or nurse practitioners who had treated patients for at least six months.
The amendment also would have limited qualifying conditions to 15 specific ailments including cancer, epilepsy, HIV/AIDS, and chronic pain lasting longer than six months.
State Sen. Bob Andersen of Sarpy County opposed allowing vaping due to concerns about youth drug use, while committee chair Rick Holdcroft suggested selling cannabis flower would be “a gateway toward recreational marijuana,” a claim Hansen “heavily disputed,” according to the Examiner.
Hansen now faces a difficult path forward, requiring at least 25 votes to pull the bill from committee and then needing 33 senators to advance it across three rounds of debate, regardless of filibuster attempts.
Crista Eggers, executive director of Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana, remained optimistic despite the setback.
“This will not be the end,” Eggers said, according to the outlet. “Giving up has never been an option. Being silenced has never been an option. It’s not over. It’s not done.”
The legislative impasse is further complicated by ongoing litigation. Former state senator John Kuehn has filed two lawsuits challenging the voter-approved provisions, with one appeal pending before the Nebraska Supreme Court. The state’s Attorney General is also trying to do something about the hemp question, akin to other states across the country.
Nevada’s cannabis lounge experiment faces some expected growing pains, with one of just two state-licensed venues closing its doors after barely a year in business, according to the Las Vegas Weekly.
“The regulatory framework, compliance costs and product limitations just don’t support a sustainable business model,” said Thrive Cannabis managing partner Mitch Britten, who plans to convert the space into an event venue until regulations loosen up.
The closure leaves Planet 13’s Dazed Consumption Lounge as the only operational state-regulated cannabis lounge in Nevada. Dazed manager Blake Anderson estimates the venue attracts around 250 customers daily, primarily tourists. One other establishment, Sky High Lounge, has operated since 2019 on sovereign Las Vegas Paiute Tribe land exempt from state regulations.
Even with Nevada regulators conditionally approving 21 more lounge licenses, potential owners are struggling to meet the $200,000 liquid assets requirement – particularly social equity applicants from communities hit hardest by prohibition.
Recreational marijuana has been legal statewide since 2017, but public consumption remains prohibited. That’s created an obvious disconnect for the millions of tourists who visit Las Vegas annually but have nowhere legal to use the products they purchase. The state recorded roughly $829 million in taxable sales during the 2024 fiscal year.
“It always comes down to money, and it’s difficult to get a space if you can’t afford to buy a building. On top of that, getting insurance and finding a landowner who’s willing to lease to a cannabis business is a challenge in and of itself,” said Christopher LaPorte, whose consulting firm Reset Las Vegas helped launch Smoke and Mirrors, told Las Vegas Weekly.
Many think the key to future success lies in legislative changes that would allow lounges to integrate with food service and entertainment – playing to Las Vegas’s strengths as a hospitality innovator. In the meantime, the industry will continue to adapt and push forward.
“Things take time,” LaPorte said. “There’s a culture that we have to continue to embrace and a lot of education that we still have to do. But at the end of the day, tourists need a place to smoke, and that’s what these places are.”
Psyence Group Inc. (CSE: PSYG) told investors that it will be consolidating all of its issued and outstanding share capital on the basis of every 15 existing common shares into one new common share effective April 23, 2025 with a record date of April 23, 2025. As a result of the consolidation, the issued and outstanding shares will be reduced to approximately 9,387,695 on the effective date.
This is the second time a Psyence company has consolidated shares recently. In November, its Nasdaq-listed associate, Psyence Biomedical Ltd. (Nasdaq: PBM), implemented a 1-for-75 share consolidation as the psychedelics company worked to maintain its Nasdaq listing.
Psyence Group reported earnings in February when the company delivered a net loss of C$3 million and was reporting as a going concern. At the end of 2024, the company said it had not yet achieved profitable operations, has accumulated losses of C$48,982,320 since its inception.
Total assets at the end of 2024 were C$11,944,478 and comprised predominantly of: cash and cash equivalents of C$10,611,113, other receivables of C$159,808, investment in PsyLabs of C$1,071,981 and prepaids of C$68,243.
Still, the company is pushing ahead. Psyence told investors that it has historically secured financing through share issuances and convertible debentures, and it continues to explore funding opportunities to support its operations and strategic initiatives. “Based on these actions and management’s expectations regarding future funding and operational developments, the company believes it will have sufficient resources to meet its obligations as they become due for at least the next twelve months,” it said in its last financial filing.
The company said it believes that the consolidation will position it with greater flexibility for the development of its business and the growth of the company.