Hemp banking after FinCEN guidance

The new federal funding bill didn’t just tweak hemp’s definition—it rewired hemp banking. Congress added a 0.4 mg total THC cap per container, banned most synthetic or converted cannabinoids, and told FDA/HHS to classify “THC-like” compounds. When that new definition kicks in, FinCEN’s existing hemp and marijuana guidance will push many intoxicating hemp brands out of the “hemp” bucket and into “marijuana,” where most banks simply refuse to play.

If your business model is intoxicating hemp, the one-year “grace period” is not a runway—it’s a trap door.

Key facts for hemp banking after the new law

• New federal law caps hemp products at 0.4 mg total THC per finished container.

• Cannabinoids synthesized or converted outside the plant no longer count as hemp.

• FinCEN’s 2020 hemp guidance lets banks treat legal hemp like any other business—but only if it complies with all applicable laws.

• If it’s not compliant hemp, FinCEN’s 2014 marijuana guidance and marijuana-SAR regime apply.

• Prudential regulators (Fed, OCC, FDIC, NCUA, state agencies) expect “safe and sound” banking, which means derisking businesses that are about to become illegal.

• Many intoxicating hemp brands will face account closures, frozen payments, and higher fees before the statute’s effective date.

TL;DR

Congress quietly changed the federal definition of hemp in a shutdown bill. Within a year of enactment, hemp products must stay under 0.4 mg total THC per container, avoid synthetic/converted cannabinoids, and steer clear of “THC-like” compounds that FDA/HHS puts on a hot list. FinCEN’s 2020 hemp guidance only protects “hemp” that complies with federal law, so once the new definition kicks in, many intoxicating hemp brands become marijuana-related businesses in the eyes of banks—and most will be offboarded well before November 2026.

Takeaway: Plan now as if your bank will move early, not on the statute’s effective date.

What did the new federal hemp law actually change for hemp banking?

From 2018 Farm Bill hemp to the 0.4 mg cap

Under the 2018 Farm Bill, hemp was defined by a 0.3% delta-9 THC by dry weight threshold. That left enough room for hemp-derived intoxicating products (delta-8, THCA flower, “low-dose” THC drinks) to operate in a gray area.

The new shutdown-ending funding bill rewrites the statute. One year from enactment, hemp will only be federally legal if:

1. The finished product contains no more than 0.4 mg total THC per container.

2. It contains no cannabinoids synthesized or manufactured outside the plant.

3. It contains no cannabinoids with “similar effects” to THC, as determined or listed by HHS/FDA.

Everything else falls back into a controlled-substances bucket—legally closer to marijuana than to the 2018 Farm Bill version of hemp.

Why this hits intoxicating hemp hardest

Most intoxicating hemp SKUs—THCA flower marketed as “hemp,” delta-8 vapes, multi-milligram THC seltzers and gummies—blow past a 0.4 mg per container ceiling. Analysts estimate that the law could effectively criminalize the vast majority of hemp-derived THC products currently on the market.

From a banking perspective, that means:

• Today: many of these brands can still be treated as hemp.

• One year after enactment: the same brands become non-compliant hemp and therefore marijuana-related under existing FinCEN frameworks.

Section takeaway: The new hemp law doesn’t just narrow the definition; it converts most intoxicating hemp products into marijuana-type exposures in compliance models.

How does FinCEN’s hemp guidance interact with the new hemp definition?

The 2020 hemp guidance: “normal” treatment—if you’re truly hemp

On June 29, 2020, FinCEN issued guidance on hemp-related business customers. In plain English, it tells banks:

• If the customer is a hemp business operating in compliance with federal and applicable state law (2018 Farm Bill + USDA/state plans), banks may treat them like other commercial customers.

• Banks still must perform due diligence (licenses, basic documentation, risk profile) and file SARs when they see actual suspicious activity, but no marijuana SAR is required solely because the business is hemp.

That “if” clause is the entire ballgame: it ties normal treatment to compliance with the federal hemp definition.

The 2014 marijuana guidance: the fallback

FinCEN’s 2014 marijuana guidance lays out how banks must file SARs and monitor marijuana-related businesses. It essentially says:

• Serving marijuana businesses is possible but high risk.

• Banks must categorize SARs (limited, priority, or termination) and report activity consistent with federal enforcement priorities.

• Many institutions choose simply to avoid marijuana-related customers entirely.

The 2020 hemp guidance repeatedly cross-references this 2014 framework. If a “hemp” customer turns out not to be compliant with hemp laws, they slide back into the marijuana SAR regime.

What changes when hemp’s legal definition shrinks

Once the new federal hemp definition—with its 0.4 mg cap and synthetic/“similar effects” bans—becomes effective, the phrase “compliance with applicable laws” in the 2020 guidance now points to a much narrower universe.

For banks, the logic is straightforward:

• If your finished products stay under 0.4 mg THC, avoid synthetic/converted cannabinoids, and stay off the FDA/HHS “similar effects” list → you’re still hemp under FinCEN 2020.

• If not → you’re marijuana-related under FinCEN 2014, and many banks’ default is to exit the relationship.

Section takeaway: FinCEN doesn’t need new guidance to crush intoxicating hemp; changing the legal definition of hemp automatically reroutes many brands into the marijuana-SAR bucket.

Why the one-year “grace period” is really a banking trap door

The statute builds in roughly 12 months before the new definition takes effect. Many trade groups are calling that a “grace period” or “runway.” That’s misleading for one simple reason: banks don’t manage risk at the same pace as Congress.

Prudential regulators—Federal Reserve, OCC, FDIC, NCUA, and state banking departments—examine banks on forward-looking risk, stress testing, and “safe and sound” operations. Once the law is on the books, examiners can legitimately ask:

• “Why are you still banking direct-to-consumer intoxicating hemp products that will be illegal in a year?”

• “What’s your exit plan for these customers?”

Compliance teams know they don’t get extra credit for being the last bank to offboard a doomed sector. They get extra headaches.

Section takeaway: The one-year delay might protect you from federal prosecutors, but it does not protect you from your bank’s risk committee.

Quarter-by-quarter: how hemp banking risk may escalate before November 2026

The script for your video breaks this down into four quarters; here’s how that looks in banking language.

Q1 – “Soft touches” and quiet declines

Rough window: now through early 2026.

What’s happening:

• The shutdown bill has passed; the new hemp definition is law, but the old 2018 framework still technically governs for another year.

• Inside banks, BSA/AML and risk teams start mapping their hemp customer base against the future definition.

• Customers get sorted into buckets:

  • “Safe hemp”: fiber, grain, industrial inputs, non-ingestible CBD.

  • “Toxic hemp”: ingestibles, vapes, smokable flower, anything psychoactive or obviously over the 0.4 mg cap.

You may see:

• Requests for updated COAs, explanations of your cannabinoid sourcing, and written plans to comply with the new law.

• New applications from intoxicating hemp brands quietly declined—no big announcement, just doors not opening.

Section takeaway: In Q1, banks build their dossiers and stop taking new intoxicating hemp customers, even if they haven’t started mass closures yet.

Q2 – FDA/HHS hot list and payment processor problems

The new law tasks FDA and HHS with publishing lists of:

• Naturally occurring cannabinoids

• THC-class cannabinoids

• Cannabinoids with “similar effects” (or marketed as having similar effects) to THC

That list becomes the official chemical map regulators and banks can point to.

What this means for hemp banking:

• Your hemp-derived THC drink, gummy, or vape either lands on the list (problem) or it doesn’t.

• Once the list is out, banks can’t credibly claim they “don’t know” which exposures are intoxicating.

• Card networks (Visa, Mastercard) and major processors (Stripe, PayPal, etc.) often tighten policy faster than regulators; expect merchant category codes and risk rules to shift first.

You may see:

• Higher decline rates on card transactions.

• Processors announcing that they won’t board certain hemp product categories.

• Banks updating customer risk profiles and marking intoxicating hemp as “watch” or “exit” relationships.

Section takeaway: Q2 is where payments start breaking—your products move from “complicated but tolerated” to “clearly on the wrong side of the line.”

Q3 – FinCEN clarification and the “purge” quarter

As the effective date approaches and midterm elections loom, Congress will likely be in risk-avoidance mode, not rushing to fix a hemp problem that can be framed as “protecting kids from THC gummies.” But regulators don’t stop.

What may happen:

• FinCEN issues a short advisory or clarification—not a whole new regime—stating that, in light of the new hemp definition, banks should treat:

  • Products above the 0.4 mg cap,

  • Products using synthetic/converted cannabinoids, and

  • Products involving FDA/HHS-listed “similar effects” cannabinoids
    as marijuana-related businesses once the effective date hits.

• Examiners step up questions:

  • “Why haven’t you exited this segment?”

  • “Show us your plan to migrate these customers or enhance SAR monitoring.”

Bank reactions:

• 30- or 60-day termination letters to intoxicating hemp accounts.

• Lines of credit and equipment loans quietly non-renewed.

• Underwriters tagging high-risk hemp relationships as “do not extend.”

Section takeaway: Q3 is likely to be the purge quarter when cash flow shrinks, fees spike, and many intoxicating hemp brands lose standard banking.

Q4 – After the effective date: only MRB-style banking is left

By the time the new definition officially replaces the 2018 Farm Bill hemp language, most large banks will already have cleaned up their books.

What the landscape looks like:

• Only a handful of state-chartered cannabis-focused institutions and high-risk processors continue to serve intoxicating hemp.

• Those institutions no longer see you as a “cheap hemp account”—you are a marijuana-related business in their models.

• Expect full BSA programs, enhanced due diligence, marijuana-style SARs, and marijuana-level pricing (often four-figure monthly fees for serious volume).

For everyone else, the effective date isn’t the crash—it’s the funeral. The market has already been strangled; the statute flipping on simply confirms what banks have already done.

Section takeaway: By Q4, intoxicating hemp brands that survive will be paying marijuana-style compliance costs for the privilege.

Practical steps hemp brands and investors should take now

Here’s a survival-or-exit checklist that aligns with your video.

1. Actually read the FinCEN hemp guidance

Download and review the June 29, 2020 FinCEN hemp guidance and the 2014 marijuana guidance.

Pay special attention to:

• How many times “compliance with applicable laws” appears.

• When FinCEN tells banks to revert to marijuana guidance.

Takeaway: Your banking fate hangs on a definition of “hemp” that Congress just rewrote.

2. Map your SKUs against the new definition

Create a spreadsheet listing each SKU:

• Total THC per container, not per serving.

• Whether any cannabinoids are synthetic or converted.

• Whether any cannabinoids are likely candidates for the FDA/HHS “similar effects” list.

Flag:

• Green: clearly under 0.4 mg, non-intoxicating, plant-derived only.

• Red: intoxicating products, THCA flower, high-dose drinks/gummies, synthetic or converted cannabinoids.

Takeaway: You can’t negotiate with your bank if you don’t know which products are indefensible under the new law.

3. Talk to your bank before they talk to you

Request a meeting with your:

• Relationship manager

• BSA/AML contact (if you have one)

Ask:

1. “How are you interpreting the new hemp definition for our account?”

2. “What’s your timeline for revisiting hemp banking?”

3. “What documentation would you need to be comfortable with us in 12 months?”

Document everything in writing.

Takeaway: Silence reads as risk; proactive, documented compliance planning can buy time—even if it doesn’t save every SKU.

4. Manage liquidity and inventory

For the next 12–18 months:

• Avoid building large THCA or high-dose THC inventories.

• Favor cash over slow-moving intoxicating SKUs.

• Be cautious about long-term lease, equipment, or expansion commitments that assume current margins.

Build a “pivot reserve”—enough cash to transition to:

• Non-intoxicating CBD products that can survive the 0.4 mg cap, or

• Licensed state cannabis operations, if that fits your strategy.

Takeaway: Liquidity, not inventory, will decide who can pivot and who gets forced into fire-sale exits.

5. Decide whether you’re really a hemp brand or a cannabis brand

If your business is built entirely on intoxicating products:

• You may be functionally a cannabis company wearing a hemp mask.

• The new law rips off that mask for banks and regulators.

Options:

1. Pivot to non-intoxicating hemp that can truly comply.

2. Seek state marijuana licensing and embrace the MRB banking model (with all its costs).

3. Wind down and return capital where possible, rather than waiting for forced termination and litigation.

If you end up in disputes with partners, lenders, or investors during this pivot, our business litigation and shareholder dispute teams in Illinois can help you evaluate claims and defenses.

Takeaway: Pretending to be hemp when the statute and your labels say “intoxicating cannabis” is a short-term marketing strategy, not a long-term legal or banking strategy.

6. For investors: treat 2026 as a deadline you won’t control

If you’re investing in hemp drinks, THCA brands, or delta-8/delta-10 operators:

• Underwrite as if major banks and processors exit in 2026, not as if Congress rescues the space.

• Stress-test your deals for:

  • Loss of primary banking

  • Payment processing outages

  • Forced SKU shifts and revenue compression

Consider:

• Ratchets or covenants tied to regulatory milestones (FDA/HHS list, FinCEN advisory, effective date).

• Contract language around capital calls for pivoting to compliant products or licensed operations.

Takeaway: Serious capital plans for the law as written; any legislative fix is upside, not the base case.

Example scenario: “Prairie Seltzer Co.”

Imagine Prairie Seltzer Co., a Peoria-based hemp beverage brand:

• Sells 5 mg “hemp-derived THC” seltzers in convenience stores.

• Has a normal commercial checking account and card processing under a hemp NAICS code.

Timeline:

• Q1: Bank asks for updated COAs and a compliance memo on the new law.

• Q2: FDA/HHS list drops; their main cannabinoid appears on the “THC-like” list. Decline rates creep up.

• Q3: Bank sends a 60-day termination letter citing changing federal law and risk profile.

• Q4: They scramble to open with a cannabis-specialty institution at MRB pricing, while re-formulating SKUs.

Takeaway: For many brands, the question isn’t “Will banks react?” but “How early—and are you ready when they do?”

FAQs about hemp banking after the new FinCEN era

1. What is hemp banking?
Hemp banking refers to traditional financial services—checking accounts, loans, merchant processing—provided to businesses that legally qualify as “hemp” under federal and state law. After the new law, hemp banking will effectively be limited to non-intoxicating products that fit the 0.4 mg THC cap and avoid banned cannabinoids.

2. Does the new law ban all hemp products with THC?
No, but it nearly wipes out intoxicating hemp products. The law caps hemp products at 0.4 mg total THC per container and excludes synthetic or converted cannabinoids and THC-like compounds identified by HHS. Most THCA flower, delta-8 vapes, and hemp THC drinks will fall outside the new hemp definition and be treated more like marijuana products.

3. How will FinCEN hemp guidance affect my bank account?
FinCEN’s 2020 hemp guidance lets banks treat compliant hemp businesses like normal customers. But that protection only applies if you’re operating within the federal hemp definition. After the new law’s effective date, intoxicating hemp brands will likely be treated as marijuana-related businesses under FinCEN’s 2014 guidance, making account closures or MRB-style pricing much more likely.

4. Can I just switch to a different bank or payment processor?
You may find short-term options with smaller or higher-risk institutions, but they answer to the same federal regulators. As the law’s effective date approaches and FinCEN, FDA/HHS, and prudential regulators align, most mainstream banks and major processors will either exit intoxicating hemp or price it like marijuana banking—expensive and tightly monitored.

5. Do I need a marijuana license for my hemp business now?
Not automatically—but if your business model depends on intoxicating products that will no longer qualify as hemp, you should treat state marijuana licensing as a serious strategic question. Operating intoxicating products under a “hemp” label after the new definition takes effect increases legal, banking, and enforcement risk simultaneously.

6. Can litigation or a new Farm Bill save intoxicating hemp?
There may be litigation and lobbying around the new definition, and Congress could revisit hemp in a later Farm Bill. But courts move slowly, and Congress tends to avoid controversial cannabis votes near elections. Banks plan around the law as written, not hoped-for fixes. It’s risky to build your entire balance sheet on the chance of a political reversal.

Not legal advice

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or tax advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should consult with a qualified attorney about your specific situation.

Author & contact

Author: Thomas E. Howard, Esq., ARDC 6300059
Business disputes, cannabis and hemp law, and complex commercial litigation.

Howard Law Group, LLC
456 Fulton St. Ste 404, Peoria, IL 61602
Phone: (309) 306-1095
Website: https://howardeast.com

Last reviewed/updated: 2025-11-20

Ready to talk?
Call (309) 306-1095 or use our online form to book a free consultation about hemp banking, cannabis disputes, or business litigation.