YoYoFat
Registered
Then there's also the qui tam provisions of the FCA, albeit a civil "prosecution."
Legal chat: Are we co-conspirators?
- Thread starter GtownBrown
- Start date
Then there's also the qui tam provisions of the FCA, albeit a civil "prosecution."
keangkong
Registered
The laws prohibiting the sales, distribution, and importing of unapproved drugs are designed to protect the users. Even Eli Lilly will acknowledge that the law against use of unapproved drugs is for the purpose of protecting the users, not Eli Lilly. It is frequently the case that victims of crimes have done something to encourage it. Nonetheless, they generally cannot be prosecuted for the crime even under a conspiracy theory. A victim of statutory rape, even if the initiator, cannot be prosecuted based upon conspiracy law. See In re Meagan R. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 17, 19; People v. Buffum (1953) 40 Cal.2d 709, 722-723. Nor may a person who pays a ransom to secure the return of a family member be prosecuted for conspiracy. The Mann Act punished the transportation of women for purposes of prostitution. Could a woman who was transported, with her consent and knowledge of what she was expected to do, be punished a conspirator to the crime? The United States Supreme Court said no. "[C]riminal transportation under the Mann Act may be effected without the woman's consent as in cases of intimidation or force (with which we are not now concerned). We assume, therefore, for present purposes . . . that the decisions last mentioned do not in all strictness apply.[Fn.] We do not rest our decision upon the theory of those cases, nor upon the related one that the attempt is to prosecute as conspiracy acts identical with the substantive offense. [Citation.] We place it rather upon the ground that we perceive in the failure of the Mann Act to condemn the woman's participation in those transportations which are effected with her mere consent, evidence of an affirmative legislative policy to leave her acquiescence unpunished. We think it a necessary implication of that policy that when the Mann Act and the conspiracy statute came to be construed together, as they necessarily would be, the same participation which the former contemplates an an inseparable incident of all cases in which the woman is a voluntary agent at all, but does not punish, was not automatically to be made punishable under the latter." Gebardi v. United States (1932) 287 U.S. 112, 122–123.
As to distributing or selling "research peptides," I'd recommend anyone who wants to avoid getting in trouble with the law to avoid doing those things. It may be possible to do things in the US without violating any criminal laws. However, it seems like a dangerous minefield.
YoYoFat
Registered
I've seen many cases involving imported and adulterated foreign pharma products; those matters are not pursued by the "legit" pharma companies but by regulators in some other context.
For example... a med spa charging Medicare or Medicaid for bimatoprost (brand name Latisse) claiming it's for glaucoma treatment when it's really for cosmetic purposes of eyelash growth, and using the non-FDA version imported from India for a fraction of the cost of the FDA approved version with an NDC distributed by a licensed U.S. distributor. That's Medicare/Medicaid fraud. And that's a crime. And in theory, USAOs and OIG-HHS might be motivated to pursue a med spa if the exposure is great enough, as Mr. Tang explained. But usually not. Instead, they refer them to the state's licensing authority. They would never -- NEVER -- go after that med spa's customers/patients as so-called "co-conspirators." They'd consider them "victims," if anything.
But if that same med spa wants to sell a customer that same bimatoprost for cash and discloses to the customer that it's the foreign India version and not the American version, worst thing that's going to happen to that med spa is they lose their license. Because it isn't actually fraud because they're disclosing what the product actually is and its source. That's the closest analogy to the China vendors in this instance. And they've got no license to lose. And again, neither the Feds nor the state are going after those customers.
Most of the med spas getting in trouble for "counterfeit" meds are getting in trouble for fraud, because they've represented to their customer-patients that it's the real thing, whether name brand or actual compound (instead of reconned peps), and those patients ostensibly relied on those representations in handing over their money.
Last edited:
This is not a 1:1 comparison at all, but I can expand on some related import / buy / sell nuances.
Obviously I don't want to get too specific, but I've been involved in investigations (in a civil capacity) for various luxury brands that pursue counterfeiters of their IP in China and the U.S.
Lets use a counterfeit Rolex as an example of the differences of what is an illegal act, what is prohibited, etc
- importation of a fake Rolex is prohibited
- but, attempting to import the item is not a criminal act. The item is seized and that's it.
- once it is past the port of entry and you have it, it can't be seized.
Meaning, if the item prohibited from importation is discovered at a port of entry it can be seized. But you attempting to bring it in is not a crime. (Obviously there is nuance here- if you are involved in selling thats a different story)
It's not a crime to purchase a counterfeit Rolex. It's not a crime to possess or own one. It is a criminal act to sell a counterfeit Rolex, even one. Even while it was not a criminal act to attempt and successfully import that same watch (even though it is prohibited). Get it?
(I wont get into manufacturing as thats not relevant to the U.S., with 99.999% of counterfeit watches being made in China. There was one prolific American counterfeiter for over a decade but he stopped before being properly pursued and now has a legitimate brand)
Then there are the civil actions one could face for manufacturing or selling a counterfeit Rolex.
As you can see there a number of nuances to the law / regulations surrounding importing / buying / selling certain products. One act might be illegal, another act might just be prohibited but not criminal, and another not prohibited and not criminal. All involving the same item. Then, you can face civil actions from brands, or not.
Determining where your product / substance and your actions fall under federal code is not simple for a novice, or even an attorney if they dont specialize in these things.
Having said that, I have no idea what the correct answer for this issue is.
Obviously I don't want to get too specific, but I've been involved in investigations (in a civil capacity) for various luxury brands that pursue counterfeiters of their IP in China and the U.S.
Lets use a counterfeit Rolex as an example of the differences of what is an illegal act, what is prohibited, etc
- importation of a fake Rolex is prohibited
- but, attempting to import the item is not a criminal act. The item is seized and that's it.
- once it is past the port of entry and you have it, it can't be seized.
Meaning, if the item prohibited from importation is discovered at a port of entry it can be seized. But you attempting to bring it in is not a crime. (Obviously there is nuance here- if you are involved in selling thats a different story)
It's not a crime to purchase a counterfeit Rolex. It's not a crime to possess or own one. It is a criminal act to sell a counterfeit Rolex, even one. Even while it was not a criminal act to attempt and successfully import that same watch (even though it is prohibited). Get it?
(I wont get into manufacturing as thats not relevant to the U.S., with 99.999% of counterfeit watches being made in China. There was one prolific American counterfeiter for over a decade but he stopped before being properly pursued and now has a legitimate brand)
Then there are the civil actions one could face for manufacturing or selling a counterfeit Rolex.
As you can see there a number of nuances to the law / regulations surrounding importing / buying / selling certain products. One act might be illegal, another act might just be prohibited but not criminal, and another not prohibited and not criminal. All involving the same item. Then, you can face civil actions from brands, or not.
Determining where your product / substance and your actions fall under federal code is not simple for a novice, or even an attorney if they dont specialize in these things.
Having said that, I have no idea what the correct answer for this issue is.
YoYoFat
Registered
A long time ago, I bought a couple handbags from a street vendor in Rome. I naively thought they were real.
I learned upon my return to the U.S. and passing through customs that said bags were not real. They took them from me. That's it. That's all that happened.
Years later, a then-BF had given me a large LV piece of luggage. Dude was loaded so I had no reason to think it wasn't real. Nor did he, he Googled and bought it online. I'd used it for months.
Upon returning from a trip to Germany, CBP seized my entire bag! They had me take my clothes and toiletries out by hand, and they took my damn luggage. That was embarrassing, but again -- all that happened.
I also accidentally recently "imported" flowers from Thailand, or so the dog at SFO said upon sniffing my bag. They took my dried flowers (a sort of lei-like thing), and sent me on my way.
That's all that happened. And trust me, I'd know if I got put on any list.
YoYoFat
Registered
I agree with this. I certainly wouldn't advise any client to run a GB, for example.
But participating in one? Not an issue.
YoYoFat
Registered
Yes.
I would not want to be one of the people running those GBs, if only because if something goes wrong, the pitch forks come out and can cause a GB runner a huge and costly headache (defense attorneys aren't cheap), even if nothing ultimately comes of it.
Please.
Boys only want love if it's torture.
You like her, admit it.
P.S. I'd also just like to point out, I'm not even the one who went to her concert.
Never!!! lol
GimmeABreak
Registered
My wife is a family law attorney and she is to the point she doesn't tell people because once they find out they feel they must share their custody or divorce case with her to get her opinion. She has been through more hair stylists than I can count (they all have drama).
YoYoFat
Registered
You need to calm down.
Every parent I work with whose kid was gifted a pet this year has already messaged me
Who gives a kid a turtle without asking first
keangkong
Registered
I've thought about participating in one. Although I haven't participated in one yet, my reasons for not participating have nothing to do with avoiding liability for crimes.
keangkong
Registered
If there is any fault, it's my fault for bothering to answer a question to which I knew the answer but I had trouble articulating. Then it started to bother me that I couldn't quickly find the legal authority. Then my obsessiveness took over. However, that's just the way I am.
YoYoFat
Registered
I’ve participated in two from the same gal. She’s been great. And while everything has worked out, I now know that I simply don’t have the patience to wait 8-12 weeks from purchase to receiving testing results from the randomly selected vials (which depends on those people having their sh*t together and timely sending their stuff in), which seems to be the norm.
And God help her if anything ever goes wrong, she’ll be in danger of crazy pep people going off the deep end and causing her a headache.
I'll wait for T Swift's death metal era to give her a spin.
