A successful business partnership doesn't always mean smooth sailing. There's a chance the two people involved won't see eye-to-eye on all issues, have strident disagreements about how the company should be run, or carry different visions of their joint endeavor's future. Depending on how deep the rift is, solutions can range from compromise to one partner buying the other out.
Or, you know, trying to have the partner kidnapped and murdered.
Salam Razuki pleaded guilty in 2023 to trying to hire a hitman to take out Ninus Malan, his partner in a cannabis venture. In a tentative order issued on March 15, 2025, California Superior Court Judge Michael Smyth ruled that Razuki could face financial justice as well, overruling Razuki's demurrer that Malam's civil suit alleging violation of the Bane Act didn't apply. The lawsuit can continue.
Let's Work Together! No, Not Like That!
Around 70% of businesses consisting of a partnership fail over time. Factors that can contribute to a company not surviving include competition, the market available for the firm's products or services, and sustaining profitability.
Problems at the top can also take a business down, especially when partners can't put aside their differences for the good of the company. Malan and Razuki entered a partnership as owners of several marijuana dispensaries in 2009. The 2016 passage of Prop 64 legalizing adult recreational use was a boon for the entire California weed industry, but trouble was already brewing between Malan and Razuki.
In 2018, Razuki filed a $40 million lawsuit against Malan over issues involved with Balboa Avenue Cooperative, a dispensary and cultivator operation in San Diego. Razuki claimed he'd put up the capital for the operation, even though his name wasn't on the paperwork due to a loophole in California law at that time. Malan filed a countersuit.
Vexed by the slow and expensive route through the California court system, Razuki opted for a different approach. Judging by the results, it was not his best option.
Dial M for Murder (Or K for Kidnapping)
Malan filed for a restraining order against Razuki and his associates in August of 2018, alleging that they were stealing his mail and hiring people to try to intimidate him over the lawsuit. For Razuki, that was the last straw.
On numerous occasions in October and November, Razuki, along with Sylvia Gonzales and Elizabeth Juarez, met with a hitman to sketch out a plan to eliminate Malan. It was decided that the hitman would either get Malan to go with him to Mexico or kidnap him. Regardless of how they ended up there, Malan was to be murdered.
Gonzales gave the hitman a $1,000 deposit from a dispensary linked to Razuki, with the promise of another $1,000 after the job was done. The plan was set into motion — but not the one they thought it would be.
The hitman was a confidential FBI informant. At about the same time that Malan and his family were taken into protective custody, the "hitman" reported to Razuki that the job was done. Razuki turned down the offer to see proof and paid the balance for the supposedly completed murder.
Razuki, Gonzales, and Juarez were arrested the following week. While they claimed innocence at first, all three later pleaded guilty to felony counts of conspiracy to kidnap, kill, or maim an individual. Razuki received a sentence of 84 months in 2023.
Bane of His Existence
In 2019, Malan filed a civil suit against Razuki, Gonzales, Juarez, and several people and companies linked to them. He charged that they interfered with his constitutional rights through threats of violence or force under California's Bane Act. Malan also claimed unfair competition, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence.
Razuki's demurrer sought to have the civil suit dismissed due to lack of applicability. His attorneys argued that Malan and his family didn't suffer under the Bane Act because the plot had already been stopped before they were aware it existed.
Malan contested this, saying he and his family knew about it and suffered the same kind of concern and apprehension any reasonable person would in their situation.
Judge Smyth agreed, overruling Razuki's demurrer. Malan is seeking unspecified punitive damages, injunctive relief, and court and attorney fees for having to worry about a one-way trip south of the border.
Related Resources
- No Ex Post Facto Law Defense in Murder-for-Hire Case (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
- California Drug Possession Laws (FindLaw's California Law)
- Attempt, Conspiracy, or Aiding (FindLaw's Criminal Charges)
