Dublin pharmaceutical firm facing charges over suspected falsified cancer products
A Dublin pharmaceutical firm is facing prosecution for breaking medicinal regulations over the sale of cancer treatment drugs.
The case against Taj Accura Pharmaceutical Ltd had its first listing at Dublin District Court on Monday. The firm and three named directors are being prosecuted by the Health Products Regulatory Authority (HPRA), the agency which regulates medicines in Ireland.
The firm with an address at Trinity Street, Dublin 2, faces charges relating to the sale of suspected falsified products and breaching medicinal product regulations.
It is alleged that from November 16 until December 22, 2015 they sold by wholesale a medicinal product name Fluourouracil 50 injections containing the prescription only substance Fluourouracil in circumstances where there was sufficient grounds to suspect it was a falsified medicinal product.
The prosecuting agency also allege that on March 5, 2016, the defendants imported into the State a product named Afhlan (Melphalan injections USP 50mg) knowing it to be a falsified product. It is also alleged they exported it, sold it by wholesale and placed the product, which contained a prescription only substance, in circulation.
The HPRA allege that between August 11, 2015 and Jan. 29, 2016 they brokered and sold by wholesale the product BICNU containing the prescription only substance Carmustine and sold the product.
It is also alleged they sold by wholesale Melphalan injections which contained a prescription only product between March 23, 2016 and April 5, 2016.
Directors James Madden, of Upper Pembroke Street, Dublin 2, Emma Madden of the Waterfront, Hanover Quay, Dublin 2 and Orna Madden of Hanover Dock, Hanover Quay, Dublin 2 were co-defendants with the company.
Solicitor Ronan O’Neill, for the HPRA, asked Judge John Brennan to adjourn the case for six weeks to allow time for disclosure of evidence to the defence. Judge Brennan agreed and adjourned the case until Feb. 19 next when the case will be listed for mention.
Their solicitor said it was a technical matter and the judge agreed to excuse the defendants, who have not yet indicated how they will plead, from having to attend the next hearing.