3 ms·

but attempting to understate your wealth for purposes of liability is a huge crime. this article is basically telling us that they're dramatically understating

but attempting to understate your wealth for purposes of liability is a huge crime. this article is basically telling us that they're dramatically understating their wealth to minimize the settlement damage.

loeg 7y ago
> attempting to understate your wealth for purposes of liability is a huge crime. Is it? Does being more wealthy increase your liability in some way? Is the huge crime a federal or state crime, and can you point me to any reference? (I'm sure claiming to be insolvent and unable to pay a civil suit when you have hidden assets is a type of fraud. But, that is not what happened here. Forbes estimates the family's worth at about $13 billion; no one is making the claim that they are bankrupt or unable to pay settlements / judgments.) In general, in the US, wealth is private information between you and the IRS. There are judicial exceptions, certainly — you can't lie about your wealth in sworn testimony at trial, for example. But the Sacklers' suits did not go to trial — they settled outside of court. > this article is basically telling us that they're dramatically understating their wealth to minimize the settlement damage. $1 billion over a period of 10 years is not a huge chunk of $13 billion, IMO; and that's just the amounts moved a decade ago. It isn't clear all of it ended up "hidden." I'm also not sure of the mechanism by which understating your wealth minimizes settlement damage unless you actually claim insolvency.