Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 333 / Act 368 of 1978
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7402 (2026)

Creating, manufacturing, delivering, or possessing with intent to deliver counterfeit substance or controlled substance analogue intended for human consumption; applicability of section and certain federal provisions; violations; penalties.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

PUBLIC HEALTH CODE


Act 368 of 1978


333.7402 Creating, manufacturing, delivering, or possessing with intent to deliver counterfeit substance or controlled substance analogue intended for human consumption; applicability of section and certain federal provisions; violations; penalties.

Sec. 7402.

    (1) Except as authorized by this article, a person shall not create, manufacture, deliver, or possess with intent to deliver a counterfeit substance or a controlled substance analogue intended for human consumption. This section does not apply to a person who manufactures or distributes a substance in conformance with the provisions of an approved new drug application or an exemption for investigational use within the meaning of section 505 of the federal food, drug, and cosmetic act, 21 U.S.C. 355. For purposes of this section, section 505 of the federal food, drug, and cosmetic act shall be applicable to the introduction or delivery for introduction of any new drug into intrastate, interstate, or foreign commerce.

    (2) A person who violates this section as to:

    (a) A counterfeit substance classified in schedule 1 or 2 which is either a narcotic drug or a drug described in section 7212(1)(h) or 7214(a)(iv) or (c)(ii), is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both.

    (b) Any other counterfeit substance classified in schedule 1, 2, or 3, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.

    (c) A counterfeit substance classified in schedule 4, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.

    (d) A counterfeit substance classified in schedule 5, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.

    (e) A controlled substance analogue, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or a fine of not more than $250,000.00, or both.

History: 1978, Act 368, Eff. Sept. 30, 1978 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 60, Eff. Aug. 1, 1989 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 38, Eff. June 1, 1994 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 314, Eff. Jan. 1, 2001 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 710, Eff. Apr. 1, 2003 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 183, Eff. July 1, 2012

PopularName Notes:

Act 368
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1993–2024 · leading case: People v. Bruce Berry, 499 N.W.2d 458 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Bruce Berry, 499 N.W.2d 458 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993). “, Michigan Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2d ed), p 14 (the description of MCL 333.7402[2][b]; MSA 14.15[7402][2][b] encompasses the creation, delivery, and possession with intent to deliver a counterfeit controlled substance).”
People of Michigan v. Roger Leon Hunt Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “7401] or a counterfeit substance or a controlled substance analogue in violation of [MCL 333.7402]. (b) Own or possess any chemical or any laboratory equipment that he or she knows or has reason to know is to be used for the purpose of manufacturing a controlled substance in…”
Michael D Tuck v. Wixom Smokers Shop (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “ompetent evidence that Michael’s ingestion of spice caused his mental breakdown, in light of the evidence that Michael purchased different brands of spice from other locations and the evidence that another person also supplied some of the spice that Michael consumed on June 3,…”
Michael D Tuck v. Wixom Smokers Shop (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “ompetent evidence that Michael’s ingestion of spice caused his mental breakdown, in light of the evidence that Michael purchased different brands of spice from other locations and the evidence that another person also supplied some of the spice that Michael consumed on June 3,…”
People of Michigan v. Hannibal Ramon Clemons (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “7401(2)(a)(iii), possession with intent to deliver oxycodone, MCL 333.7402(2)(b), and possession of marijuana, MCL 333.”
People of Michigan v. Rogerick Rayshun Allen (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “7402(2)(a)(iv), in order to establish that a defendant is guilty of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following four elements: “(1) that the recovered substance is cocaine [or heroin], (2) that…”
People of Michigan v. Rogerick Rayshun Allen (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “7402(2)(a)(iv), in order to establish that a defendant is guilty of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following four elements: “(1) that the recovered substance is cocaine [or heroin], (2) that…”
People Of Mi V Bobbi Jo Godfrey (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “In this case, the trial court found defendant guilty of one count of possession of methamphetamine pursuant to MCL 333.7402(2)(b)(i), which provides that “[a] person shall not knowingly or intentionally possess a controlled substance.”
Johnson v. Watson (S.D. Ind. 2021). “19-1 (referencing Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7402 (2)(a) which references Mich.”
People of Michigan v. Cornell Eugene Brown Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “529, and another of which was delivery or manufacture of a counterfeit controlled substance, MCL 333.7402(2)(a). Armed robbery is classified as a Class A felony, MCL 777.”
Clark v. United States (W.D. Mich. 2024). “Laws § 333.7402 (2)(e) in Ingham County. See Information, United States v.”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7402(2)(a): 1 case
People of Michigan v. Cornell Eugene Brown Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “529, and another of which was delivery or manufacture of a counterfeit controlled substance, MCL 333.7402(2)(a). Armed robbery is classified as a Class A felony, MCL 777.”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7402(2)(a)(iv): 2 cases
People of Michigan v. Rogerick Rayshun Allen (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “7402(2)(a)(iv), in order to establish that a defendant is guilty of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following four elements: “(1) that the recovered substance is cocaine [or heroin], (2) that…”
People of Michigan v. Rogerick Rayshun Allen (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “7402(2)(a)(iv), in order to establish that a defendant is guilty of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following four elements: “(1) that the recovered substance is cocaine [or heroin], (2) that…”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7402(2)(b): 1 case
People of Michigan v. Hannibal Ramon Clemons (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “7401(2)(a)(iii), possession with intent to deliver oxycodone, MCL 333.7402(2)(b), and possession of marijuana, MCL 333.”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7402(2)(b)(i): 1 case
People Of Mi V Bobbi Jo Godfrey (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “In this case, the trial court found defendant guilty of one count of possession of methamphetamine pursuant to MCL 333.7402(2)(b)(i), which provides that “[a] person shall not knowingly or intentionally possess a controlled substance.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.