September 23, 2026
An extraction-room security camera pointed at a blank wall instead of the equipment it was supposed to monitor. That single detail is what Michigan’s cannabis regulator highlighted when it closed one processor license and revoked another, alongside a $2 million fine, on September 16, 2026. Nine days earlier, in Pennsylvania — a state with no licensed adult-use market at all — a statewide grand jury investigation produced criminal charges against 12 people accused of moving high-potency THC products through gas stations and smoke shops in an alleged $18.7 million operation. This is a roundup of fines, revocations and criminal charges only; a separate pesticide-recall chain moving through California and Missouri regulators the same week — covered in September's recall actions — is a different story entirely.
On September 16, 2026, the Michigan Cannabis Regulatory Agency (CRA) announced it was closing the adult-use processor license and revoking the medical processor license of Michigan Investment 10 LLC, a Pinconning-based processor, along with a $2 million fine. The final orders — ENF-23-00784 (adult-use) and ENF-23-00785 (medical) — were issued by CRA Executive Director Brian Hanna following a contested case hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) within the Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules.
The CRA’s press release states that the company “violated state laws and numerous administrative rules governing cannabis processor operations.” Hanna’s own description of the finding, quoted in the release, is specific: “These were egregious violations, capped by the fact that their camera in the extraction room was pointed at a wall instead of the activity it was supposed to monitor.” The agency has separately laid out how it treats hemp-derived cannabinoids as marijuana under state law, part of a broader pattern of the CRA reading its statutory authority broadly.
The timeline is the real story here. The CRA summarily suspended Michigan Investment 10’s processor licenses on November 15, 2023. A post-suspension hearing on December 4, 2023 led an ALJ to dissolve that summary suspension on January 12, 2024 — meaning the company resumed operating while a contested case hearing proceeded on January 8–9, 2024. The ALJ did not issue a proposal for decision until June 18, 2026, roughly two and a half years after that hearing. The CRA then accepted the ALJ’s findings, and the final orders take effect September 24, 2026.
From summary suspension to a final, enforceable revocation: nearly three years.
For an operator facing a CRA contested case, the binding constraint is not whether a camera-coverage or recordkeeping violation is defensible on the merits. It is the clock. Michigan Investment 10 operated for roughly 34 months — suspension lifted, complaint pending — before the revocation became final. The question a board should be asking when a formal complaint lands is not only “can we win this hearing.” It is “can this business survive close to three years of contested-case process while we try.”
Pennsylvania has no licensed adult-use cannabis market, so there was no regulatory agency positioned to file a formal complaint here. Instead, on September 14, 2026, Attorney General Dave Sunday announced criminal charges against 12 people following a recommendation from a statewide investigating grand jury. Investigators say the operation moved high-potency THC products from three warehouses — in Plum Borough (Allegheny County), Pittston (Luzerne County) and Bensalem (Bucks County) — into convenience stores and smoke shops across the state, a distribution pattern that runs through Pennsylvania’s unregulated hemp-derived THC market. Because legality of hemp-derived intoxicating products varies sharply from state to state, understanding which states permit the products at issue is essential context for any multi-state distributor weighing similar exposure. Agents seized roughly 150,000 items and traced approximately $18.7 million in alleged illegal proceeds, some of it allegedly laundered through LLC fronts.
Charges include corrupt organizations, dealing in proceeds of illegal activity, and felony drug-trafficking offenses, according to the Attorney General’s office. All 12 defendants have been arraigned. No docket numbers have been released as of publication, and every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. This section is not legal advice. Anyone with potential exposure in this matter should talk to counsel immediately.
Michigan Investment 10’s final orders take effect September 24, 2026, but a contested-case respondent can generally still seek judicial review in circuit court. Whether the company will appeal was not addressed in the CRA’s release, and no appeal filing had been reported as of publication. Pennsylvania’s case sits at an earlier procedural stage entirely: charges and arraignments are not convictions, pretrial motions and any negotiations lie ahead, and — again — every defendant is presumed innocent. Both matters could take months or years to fully resolve.
Boards that want earlier warning on this kind of exposure, rather than finding out from a press release, should see our related guide on compliance dashboards and KPIs that predict enforcement exposure early.
Both cases are ultimately about high-potency THC products moving through channels regulators did not fully control. But the enforcement mechanics could not be more different. Michigan operates a licensed adult-use and medical market, so the CRA’s tool is administrative: a formal complaint, a contested case hearing before an ALJ, and eventually a final order that can take years to arrive. Pennsylvania has no licensed adult-use market, so its enforcement tool is criminal: a statewide investigating grand jury, an indictment, and a prosecution in state court. An operator in Michigan negotiates with a regulatory agency; a defendant in Pennsylvania faces a prosecutor. Other states have taken a third route entirely — folding hemp enforcement into alcohol-control-board permitting and inspection regimes, or running the kind of aggressive, cross-agency inspection sweeps California has used against hemp retailers. For multi-state operators, that variation should shape how compliance teams are staffed and how legal budgets are allocated by state.
According to the Michigan Cannabis Regulatory Agency’s press release, the company violated state laws and “numerous administrative rules governing cannabis processor operations” at its Pinconning facility. The agency’s executive director specifically cited an extraction-room security camera pointed at a wall instead of the activity it was required to monitor as emblematic of the violations.
September 24, 2026, according to the CRA’s press release announcing the closure and revocation.
The Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office charged 12 people with corrupt organizations, dealing in proceeds of illegal activity, and felony drug-trafficking offenses, following a statewide investigating grand jury’s recommendation. No docket numbers have been released, and all defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
This order shows that it can factor into license-level risk. Michigan’s CRA Executive Director described the camera issue as capping a broader pattern of violations, and the agency revoked and closed the company’s two processor licenses in response. That is not a statement about how every state, or every camera issue, would be treated. Talk to your counsel about your specific state’s requirements.
In this matter, nearly three years: from a summary suspension in November 2023 to a final order effective September 24, 2026, including an roughly 18-month gap between the contested case hearing and the administrative law judge’s proposal for decision.
| Jurisdiction | Regulator or prosecutor | Trigger | Forum | Penalty | Elapsed time, trigger to action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michigan | Cannabis Regulatory Agency (CRA) | Formal complaints alleging processor violations, including extraction-room camera coverage | Contested case hearing before an ALJ; CRA final order | $2 million fine; adult-use license closed; medical license revoked | About 34 months (November 2023 summary suspension to September 2026 final order) |
| Pennsylvania | Office of Attorney General | Statewide investigating grand jury recommendation | Criminal court (charges, arraignment, and prosecution ahead) | Felony charges including corrupt organizations, dealing in proceeds of illegal activity, and drug trafficking | About one month from grand jury recommendation (August 2026) to charges (September 14, 2026) |
This is regulatory journalism, not legal advice — talk to your counsel.
An extraction-room security camera pointed at a blank wall instead of the equipment it was supposed to monitor. That single detail is what Michigan’s cannabis regulator highlighted when it closed one processor license and revoked another, alongside a $2 million fine, on September 16, 2026. Nine days earlier, in Pennsylvania — a state with no licensed adult-use market at all — a statewide grand jury investigation produced criminal charges against 12 people accused of moving high-potency THC products through gas stations and smoke shops in an alleged $18.7 million operation. This is a roundup of fines, revocations and criminal charges only; a separate pesticide-recall chain moving through California and Missouri regulators the same week — covered in September's recall actions — is a different story entirely.
On September 16, 2026, the Michigan Cannabis Regulatory Agency (CRA) announced it was closing the adult-use processor license and revoking the medical processor license of Michigan Investment 10 LLC, a Pinconning-based processor, along with a $2 million fine. The final orders — ENF-23-00784 (adult-use) and ENF-23-00785 (medical) — were issued by CRA Executive Director Brian Hanna following a contested case hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) within the Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules.
The CRA’s press release states that the company “violated state laws and numerous administrative rules governing cannabis processor operations.” Hanna’s own description of the finding, quoted in the release, is specific: “These were egregious violations, capped by the fact that their camera in the extraction room was pointed at a wall instead of the activity it was supposed to monitor.” The agency has separately laid out how it treats hemp-derived cannabinoids as marijuana under state law, part of a broader pattern of the CRA reading its statutory authority broadly.
The timeline is the real story here. The CRA summarily suspended Michigan Investment 10’s processor licenses on November 15, 2023. A post-suspension hearing on December 4, 2023 led an ALJ to dissolve that summary suspension on January 12, 2024 — meaning the company resumed operating while a contested case hearing proceeded on January 8–9, 2024. The ALJ did not issue a proposal for decision until June 18, 2026, roughly two and a half years after that hearing. The CRA then accepted the ALJ’s findings, and the final orders take effect September 24, 2026.
From summary suspension to a final, enforceable revocation: nearly three years.
For an operator facing a CRA contested case, the binding constraint is not whether a camera-coverage or recordkeeping violation is defensible on the merits. It is the clock. Michigan Investment 10 operated for roughly 34 months — suspension lifted, complaint pending — before the revocation became final. The question a board should be asking when a formal complaint lands is not only “can we win this hearing.” It is “can this business survive close to three years of contested-case process while we try.”
Pennsylvania has no licensed adult-use cannabis market, so there was no regulatory agency positioned to file a formal complaint here. Instead, on September 14, 2026, Attorney General Dave Sunday announced criminal charges against 12 people following a recommendation from a statewide investigating grand jury. Investigators say the operation moved high-potency THC products from three warehouses — in Plum Borough (Allegheny County), Pittston (Luzerne County) and Bensalem (Bucks County) — into convenience stores and smoke shops across the state, a distribution pattern that runs through Pennsylvania’s unregulated hemp-derived THC market. Because legality of hemp-derived intoxicating products varies sharply from state to state, understanding which states permit the products at issue is essential context for any multi-state distributor weighing similar exposure. Agents seized roughly 150,000 items and traced approximately $18.7 million in alleged illegal proceeds, some of it allegedly laundered through LLC fronts.
Charges include corrupt organizations, dealing in proceeds of illegal activity, and felony drug-trafficking offenses, according to the Attorney General’s office. All 12 defendants have been arraigned. No docket numbers have been released as of publication, and every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. This section is not legal advice. Anyone with potential exposure in this matter should talk to counsel immediately.
Michigan Investment 10’s final orders take effect September 24, 2026, but a contested-case respondent can generally still seek judicial review in circuit court. Whether the company will appeal was not addressed in the CRA’s release, and no appeal filing had been reported as of publication. Pennsylvania’s case sits at an earlier procedural stage entirely: charges and arraignments are not convictions, pretrial motions and any negotiations lie ahead, and — again — every defendant is presumed innocent. Both matters could take months or years to fully resolve.
Boards that want earlier warning on this kind of exposure, rather than finding out from a press release, should see our related guide on compliance dashboards and KPIs that predict enforcement exposure early.
Both cases are ultimately about high-potency THC products moving through channels regulators did not fully control. But the enforcement mechanics could not be more different. Michigan operates a licensed adult-use and medical market, so the CRA’s tool is administrative: a formal complaint, a contested case hearing before an ALJ, and eventually a final order that can take years to arrive. Pennsylvania has no licensed adult-use market, so its enforcement tool is criminal: a statewide investigating grand jury, an indictment, and a prosecution in state court. An operator in Michigan negotiates with a regulatory agency; a defendant in Pennsylvania faces a prosecutor. Other states have taken a third route entirely — folding hemp enforcement into alcohol-control-board permitting and inspection regimes, or running the kind of aggressive, cross-agency inspection sweeps California has used against hemp retailers. For multi-state operators, that variation should shape how compliance teams are staffed and how legal budgets are allocated by state.
According to the Michigan Cannabis Regulatory Agency’s press release, the company violated state laws and “numerous administrative rules governing cannabis processor operations” at its Pinconning facility. The agency’s executive director specifically cited an extraction-room security camera pointed at a wall instead of the activity it was required to monitor as emblematic of the violations.
September 24, 2026, according to the CRA’s press release announcing the closure and revocation.
The Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office charged 12 people with corrupt organizations, dealing in proceeds of illegal activity, and felony drug-trafficking offenses, following a statewide investigating grand jury’s recommendation. No docket numbers have been released, and all defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
This order shows that it can factor into license-level risk. Michigan’s CRA Executive Director described the camera issue as capping a broader pattern of violations, and the agency revoked and closed the company’s two processor licenses in response. That is not a statement about how every state, or every camera issue, would be treated. Talk to your counsel about your specific state’s requirements.
In this matter, nearly three years: from a summary suspension in November 2023 to a final order effective September 24, 2026, including an roughly 18-month gap between the contested case hearing and the administrative law judge’s proposal for decision.
| Jurisdiction | Regulator or prosecutor | Trigger | Forum | Penalty | Elapsed time, trigger to action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michigan | Cannabis Regulatory Agency (CRA) | Formal complaints alleging processor violations, including extraction-room camera coverage | Contested case hearing before an ALJ; CRA final order | $2 million fine; adult-use license closed; medical license revoked | About 34 months (November 2023 summary suspension to September 2026 final order) |
| Pennsylvania | Office of Attorney General | Statewide investigating grand jury recommendation | Criminal court (charges, arraignment, and prosecution ahead) | Felony charges including corrupt organizations, dealing in proceeds of illegal activity, and drug trafficking | About one month from grand jury recommendation (August 2026) to charges (September 14, 2026) |
This is regulatory journalism, not legal advice — talk to your counsel.
