3 ms·

It's very sad that they were allowed to willfully do this for years. And now that law is finally catching up on them, they will pay a chunk of their blood mone

It's very sad that they were allowed to willfully do this for years. And now that law is finally catching up on them, they will pay a chunk of their blood money and go scott free.

dfsegoat 7y ago
I concur. I think their family-name is ruined, a number of other organizations are cutting ties with them: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/arts/design/sackler-museums-donations-oxycontin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/arts/design/sackler-museu... https://www.businessinsider.com/sackler-family-over-opioid-crisis-organizations-that-have-cut-ties-with-2019-7#2-the-national-portrait-gallery-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/sackler-family-over-opioid-c...
- SenHeng 7y ago
  Easily solved by having their kids marry into another family. Then again, having all that wealth, would one still care?
  - dfsegoat 7y ago
    That is the question I found myself still asking, despite the above articles...
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    In the US, changing names doesn't require marrying someone. It's usually just some paperwork at the local courts and paying some fees.
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> they will pay a chunk of their blood money and go Scott free Based on what? We saw similar pronouncements following Elizabeth Holmes' civil charges. And pretty much every scandal preceding and succeeding that. This settlement is similar to the J&J public-nuisance ruling in Oklahoma. Public nuisance does not require proving intent. Proving intent is difficult. Many believe prosecutors in the United States, Canada, and Europe, will find evidence of ill intent amongst members of the Sackler family. That would lead to additional confiscations of property and, if criminal convictions can be attained, potentially even jail time. But that's a longer, more difficult and more expensive process. Hence why this comes first.
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  Except profit motive is not often considered ill intent, and that's something I take issue with. More often than not, this basically goes down as something like 'bad business decisions' which carries little if any personal liability for the executives of the given company, and why exactly is that? Just because you were a decision maker at a large company, or part of a team that made a given decision, when the harm done is this catastrophic, how do you get to just walk away? And before you say "this comes first" or "we're not there yet" just think back to the 2008 banking crisis, and how the people who got incredibly rich(er) off of the backs of working class people are still very much incredibly rich, many still working in the industry they royally screwed up in.

It's very sad that they were allowed to willfully do this for years. And now that law is finally catching up on them, they will pay a chunk of their blood money and go scott free.

dfsegoat 7y ago

I concur. I think their family-name is ruined, a number of other organizations are cutting ties with them: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/arts/design/sackler-museums-donations-oxycontin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/arts/design/sackler-museu... https://www.businessinsider.com/sackler-family-over-opioid-crisis-organizations-that-have-cut-ties-with-2019-7#2-the-national-portrait-gallery-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/sackler-family-over-opioid-c...

SenHeng 7y ago
Easily solved by having their kids marry into another family. Then again, having all that wealth, would one still care?
- dfsegoat 7y ago
  That is the question I found myself still asking, despite the above articles...
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  In the US, changing names doesn't require marrying someone. It's usually just some paperwork at the local courts and paying some fees.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> they will pay a chunk of their blood money and go Scott free Based on what? We saw similar pronouncements following Elizabeth Holmes' civil charges. And pretty much every scandal preceding and succeeding that. This settlement is similar to the J&J public-nuisance ruling in Oklahoma. Public nuisance does not require proving intent. Proving intent is difficult. Many believe prosecutors in the United States, Canada, and Europe, will find evidence of ill intent amongst members of the Sackler family. That would lead to additional confiscations of property and, if criminal convictions can be attained, potentially even jail time. But that's a longer, more difficult and more expensive process. Hence why this comes first.

FussyZeus 7y ago
Except profit motive is not often considered ill intent, and that's something I take issue with. More often than not, this basically goes down as something like 'bad business decisions' which carries little if any personal liability for the executives of the given company, and why exactly is that? Just because you were a decision maker at a large company, or part of a team that made a given decision, when the harm done is this catastrophic, how do you get to just walk away? And before you say "this comes first" or "we're not there yet" just think back to the 2008 banking crisis, and how the people who got incredibly rich(er) off of the backs of working class people are still very much incredibly rich, many still working in the industry they royally screwed up in.