Criminal sanctions

For most judges, sentencing a person who has been convicted of a crime is a difficult decision. In the majority of jurisdictions throughout the country, judges have few sentencing options from which to choose. Generally, their options are confined to a fine, probation, or incarceration. Crimes, however, cover a wide spectrum of criminal behavior and motivation, and a wide variety of sanctions should be available. 

Besides seizing Elixir Sulfanilamide wherever it could be traced, the Food and Drug Administration saw to the filing of criminal charges against Dr. Massengill and his firm, both in Knoxville and in Kansas City (54 ). Because he had conceded two earlier prosecution charges, he was a second offender and thus subject to more severe sanctions under the 1906 law. 

Care should be taken in the preparation of the conforming amendments statements. While failure to comply with GLPs is only subject to administrative sanctions (e.g., disallowance of a study or disqualification of a testing facility), knowingly submitting a false statement to the FDA is a criminal offense punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. 

On February 18, 2000, GBL became a List I chemical, subject to the criminal, civil, and administrative sanctions of the CSA. This legislation, Public Law 106-172, was named the Hillary Farias and Samantha Reid Date-Rape Prohibition Act of 1999 for the two Michigan girls poisoned with GBL, one fatally. 

On February 18, 2000, the Hillary Farias and Samantha Reed Date-Rape Prohibition Act (Public Law 106-172) made the GHB precursor GBL a List I chemical, subject to the criminal, civil, and administrative sanctions of the Controlled Substances Act. On March 13, 2000, GHB became a Schedule I controlled substance (65 FR 13235-13238), subject to the regulatory controls and the criminal, civil, and administrative sanctions of the Controlled Substances Act. Schedule I, which is the same as for heroin, LSD, and marijuana, states that the drug has no medical use and cannot be prescribed, and that the drug has a high potential for abuse. 

When a company cannot or will not voluntarily correct a public health problem with one of its products, FDA has legal sanctions it can bring to bear. The agency can go to court to force a company to stop selling a product and to have items already produced seized and destroyed. When warranted, criminal penalties, including prison sentences, are sought against manufacturers and distributors. 

Many companies, in their internal training, include information about the anti-kickback statute. The Office of the Inspector General in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) enforces the antikickback law. HHS administers the Medicaid and Medicare programs. Any serious violations are referred for potential criminal prosecution to the Department of Justice administrative sanctions also are possible. 

Each company should have a policy that strictly prohibits the deliberate falsification, mutilation, obliteration, or destruction of raw data and associated GMP documentation. Companies must insist on strict adherence to such policies and should take aggressive disciplinary action when lapses are detected. Failure to do so may subject the company and its corporate officers to severe regulatory sanctions, including criminal prosecution under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the general criminal laws of the United States (Title 18, U.S. Code). Even inadvertent (non-deliberate) acts that result in loss of data or records should be prevented, and, if they occur, they should be promptly and thoroughly investigated. 

Treatment does not need to be voluntary to be effective. Strong motivation can facilitate the treatment process, however. Sanctions or enticements in the family, employment setting, or criminal justice system can increase significantly both treatment entry and retention rates and the success of drug treatment interventions. 

Pharmaceutical companies, which conduct unlawful communication campaigns, may incur both administrative sanctions and criminal penalties. 

Cases of a serious offence against the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law and the Fair Competition Rules are subject to criminal sanction (i.e. up to 2 years in jail and/or a fine of up to 1 million yen). Such serious sanctions against a company, together with a public announcement, would place the company at a considerable disadvantage with respect to its business in Japan. 

Breaches of the advertising provisions may carry a criminal sanction and therefore the NMA may also notify the prosecution authorities of possible breach of law. In practice, this will be relevant only to serious or repeated breaches of the law. 

The criminal sanctions for violating the rules on the advertising of medicinal products are imprisonment for up to 3 months or a fine of up to CHF50 000 if the perpetrator acted intentionally. If the person in question was acting in his or her professional capacity, the penalty is imprisonment for up... 

Such actions through the courts may be taken by anyone whose clientele, credit, professional standing, business or other economic interests are threatened or injured by unfair competition. The criminal sanctions for committing acts of unfair competition are imprisonment for up to 3 years or a fine of up to CHF100 000. 

See Pub. L. 104-191 42 USC Sectionl320d-5 Pub. L. 104-191 42 USC Section 1320d-6. A person who knowingly obtains or discloses individually identifiable health information in violation of HIPAA faces a fine of 50 000 and up to one-year imprisonment. The criminal penalties increase to 100 000 and up to 5 years imprisonment if the wrongful conduct involves false pretences, and to 250 000 and up to 10 years imprisonment if the wrongful conduct involves the intent to sell, transfer or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain or malicious harm. Criminal sanctions will be enforced by the Department of Justice. 

Criminal sanctions may be imposed on health care professionals in certain situations.These situations include improper prescribing of controlled substances, Medicaid and Medicare fraud, sexual abuse of patients, and even negligent care of patients. 

It has long been clear that pharmacists would be liable for exchanging controlled drugs for sexual favors from either patients or nonpatients. A pharmacist may now also be liable for writing a prescription in exchange for sexual favors. Furthermore, pharmacists doing physical examinations must avoid behaviors that could be construed as inappropriate touching or sexual assault, both of which could result in criminal or administrative sanctions. 

Should it be prohibited from any but experimental medical use with criminal sanctions for possession for any other purpose or, at the other extreme, should it be freely available to anyone to use as he sees fit. Var3dng positions are held by law enforcement personnel (for control and punitive laws on possession), medical personnel (mostly for medical but no other use), some academicians, theologians, intellectuals, emd artist (for nonmedical use but in some controlled setting), members of the government movement (for unrestricted use). 

---