3 ms·

Originally the State's Attornies were fighting for a significant portion of the settlement to come from their personal wealth and not the company. Family's off

Originally the State's Attornies were fighting for a significant portion of the settlement to come from their personal wealth and not the company. Family's offer was just company assets and none of their personal wealth.

loeg 7y ago
I don't believe your comment is responsive to the thread. My contention is that nothing in this article shows or even purports that the Sacklers committed a corporate accounting crime. Apparently people disagree with the position but I haven't seen any greatly articulated arguments why I'm mistaken. Wiring around your own lawfully obtained money isn't a crime. Taking profits from your private company that isn't facing bankrupcy (2008-2016) broadly isn't a crime. Negotiating a different deal with State's Attornies than the highest offering bid by the SA's also isn't a crime. It's not the family's lowest offer; it's the mutually-agreed settlement. There's a lot of reason not to like the Sacklers or Purdue Pharma! And there's a lot of reasons they should maybe lose some money or go to jail! Those reasons are just unrelated to the contents of this article — which is stirring up shit that looks bad to laypeople but isn't criminal.
- cptskippy 7y ago
  My comment was adding context and presenting motive as to why they might be moving money around. The Sacklers were/are potentially facing fines against their personal wealth, not just the company's wealth. So the potential exists for them to commit a crime should they face personal fines. It's not uncommon for people to hide assets during legal proceedings to reduce their liability. There's a reason, when someone is under investigation, that they're not allowed to leave the country because it's easy to just not come back if they're charged. The same applies to money, it's easy to make money inaccessible which is why assets are often frozen during criminal probes.

loeg 7y ago

I don't believe your comment is responsive to the thread. My contention is that nothing in this article shows or even purports that the Sacklers committed a corporate accounting crime. Apparently people disagree with the position but I haven't seen any greatly articulated arguments why I'm mistaken. Wiring around your own lawfully obtained money isn't a crime. Taking profits from your private company that isn't facing bankrupcy (2008-2016) broadly isn't a crime. Negotiating a different deal with State's Attornies than the highest offering bid by the SA's also isn't a crime. It's not the family's lowest offer; it's the mutually-agreed settlement. There's a lot of reason not to like the Sacklers or Purdue Pharma! And there's a lot of reasons they should maybe lose some money or go to jail! Those reasons are just unrelated to the contents of this article — which is stirring up shit that looks bad to laypeople but isn't criminal.

cptskippy 7y ago
My comment was adding context and presenting motive as to why they might be moving money around. The Sacklers were/are potentially facing fines against their personal wealth, not just the company's wealth. So the potential exists for them to commit a crime should they face personal fines. It's not uncommon for people to hide assets during legal proceedings to reduce their liability. There's a reason, when someone is under investigation, that they're not allowed to leave the country because it's easy to just not come back if they're charged. The same applies to money, it's easy to make money inaccessible which is why assets are often frozen during criminal probes.