3 ms·

The article addresses what the news is. it is quite notable that anyone would move $1bb out of the US while facing the possibility of HUGE civil judgements. Mor

The article addresses what the news is. it is quite notable that anyone would move $1bb out of the US while facing the possibility of HUGE civil judgements. Moreover, my reading is that this money was routed in such a way that it looks like obfuscation, a key component of money laundering. More concisely, here is a quote, directly from the article: "But the attorneys general of a majority of states, including New York and Massachusetts, are balking at the proposed deal, contending that the Sackler family has siphoned off company profits that should be used to pay for the billions of dollars in damage caused by opioids."

dmix 7y ago
Are they not able to pay the fines?
- wbronitsky 7y ago
  From the article: "It was unclear whether Ms. James’s initial findings of new Sackler funds would influence the parties that have agreed to the settlement. "
loeg 7y ago
The article suggests but does not claim that the money movement was any kind of laundering (and unlikely to be structuring, just in terms of the sheer number of transactions required to send $1 Bil at 9,999$/pop).
- wbronitsky 7y ago
  You are correct, and I should have clarified. There is not enough evidence here for the New York Times to suggest laundering, that is my coloring of the situation.
malandrew 7y ago
If I had multiple billions of dollars in one country like the Sacklers, I certainly would move a few billion out of that country to shield against country risk. Yes, the US is one of the safest places to have assets, but it's also got a runaway spending habit. Moving less than 10% out just to shield you from the off chance that the US does something that hurts your wealth is just common sense. As someone pointed out elsewhere, a lot of this money was moved out almost a decade ago, well before there was the possibility of huge civil judgements.

dmix 7y ago

Are they not able to pay the fines?

wbronitsky 7y ago
From the article: "It was unclear whether Ms. James’s initial findings of new Sackler funds would influence the parties that have agreed to the settlement. "

loeg 7y ago

The article suggests but does not claim that the money movement was any kind of laundering (and unlikely to be structuring, just in terms of the sheer number of transactions required to send $1 Bil at 9,999$/pop).

wbronitsky 7y ago
You are correct, and I should have clarified. There is not enough evidence here for the New York Times to suggest laundering, that is my coloring of the situation.

malandrew 7y ago

If I had multiple billions of dollars in one country like the Sacklers, I certainly would move a few billion out of that country to shield against country risk. Yes, the US is one of the safest places to have assets, but it's also got a runaway spending habit. Moving less than 10% out just to shield you from the off chance that the US does something that hurts your wealth is just common sense. As someone pointed out elsewhere, a lot of this money was moved out almost a decade ago, well before there was the possibility of huge civil judgements.