4 ms·

> "In a brief filed on behalf of the relatives of Mortimer Sackler, most of whom are based overseas, lawyers warned of “significant litigation costs and risks”

> "In a brief filed on behalf of the relatives of Mortimer Sackler, most of whom are based overseas, lawyers warned of “significant litigation costs and risks” in seeking to enforce any foreign court judgments against the family if the settlement were thrown out." I understand your point, but basically they are saying: "We hid all our assets to evade the law. Give us immunity from criminal money laundering evasion and we will only pay part of what we likely would have owed." Can you imagine a member of Congress or the President saying this? Forgoing immunity is a scorched earth tactic, but it is also one that will dissuade future abusers. We have those overseas money reporting laws that make it difficult for Americans to get bank accounts overseas. Let's use them!

sillywalk 2y ago
> "We hid all our assets to evade the law. Give us immunity from criminal money laundering evasion and we will only pay part of what we likely would have owed." > Can you imagine a member of Congress or the President saying this? Yes.
- dylan604 2y ago
  Well, we haven't gotten to that part just yet. Right now, we're still in the stage of deny deny deny even in the face of evidence and convictions. They are still in the deny stage.
yieldcrv 2y ago
> "We hid all our assets to evade the law. Give us immunity from criminal money laundering evasion and we will only pay part of what we likely would have owed." > We have those overseas money reporting laws that make it difficult for Americans to get bank accounts overseas. Let's use them! This is conflating two things. It is not criminal to move money offshore, and nothing suggested any money laundering occurred, because it is not necessary to launder money to move it offshore. And it is also not money laundering to obfuscate money's origin or destination. Money laundering requires a criminal origin and then obfuscation. Despite how much the US has convinced its entire culture to stigmatize the concept of moving money, the US is operating in its own bubble of hubris to suggest money has to stay within its ecosystem. It doesn't make any sense at all when you say it out loud does it? To your second point, the US has reporting laws on money held offshore legally, for US citizens. For banks, this is merely an additional compliance burden that disincentivizes them from dealing with small accounts because its not worth it. But at Sackler money, it is worth it. It is not hard to find someone to bank you as an American. And at Sackler levels of money you don't have to remain a US citizen, hence absolving the reporting requirements if they went that direction. Or when you have a second citizenship, you can just not tell the US about it, and you can just not tell the foreign bank about your US citizenship. Prosecute that on its own, if you find out. and finally, there are gaps in this reporting framework. FATCA treaty was a broad expansion of a country's power, to the limit of our global society in the continuum of history. And its not completely as omnipresent as the American psyche imagined. Just like the global sanctions attempt on Russia showed, its a nice try but now everyone can see how much is hubris in plain sight.
- armada651 2y ago
  > And at Sackler levels of money you don't have to remain a US citizen, hence absolving the reporting requirements if they went that direction. Renouncing your citizenship because you owe the US government money is generally not seen as a valid reason by the US government to renounce your citizenship.
  - fuzzylightbulb 2y ago
    Nor should it be. These people are leeches whose very existence is antithetical to a healthy and just society. They've done immeasurable damage and then hide behind the courts to avoid any repercussions. Disgusting, the lot of them.
  - yieldcrv 2y ago
    That’s not the reason you would say in your renunciation ceremony
    - swiftcoder 2y ago
      Even if they let you go through with the ceremony, it doesn't actually stop them coming after you.
- lazyasciiart 2y ago
  > and you can just not tell the foreign bank about your US citizenship Holding foreign assets that you did not report on an FBAR is a crime. Lying about it to the bank that asks if you are a US citizen wod be obfuscation to support a crime. I'm not sure why you are trying to argue that nothing criminal is being done in these scenarios.
chasil 2y ago
Consider a few issues: - the foremost among the perpetrators are dead - the rest of the family is culpable, but less so - the settlement money will now be entirely repurposed for legal defense - meanwhile the victims get nothing Does justice demand punishment or compensation?
- pdonis 2y ago
  That's basically the argument made in the dissenting opinion. I find the split among the justices here very interesting as it is not along party lines, as such splits usually are.
- naasking 2y ago
  > Does justice demand punishment or compensation? Which outcome provides the greatest disincentive against anyone else even contemplating doing something like this ever again?
- BobbyJo 2y ago
  It generally demands deterrence. Helping the victims out is great, and the proceedings should do that as best they can, but the largest benefit that can be brought to society as a whole is showing that doing these kinds of things will be bad for you.
jjtheblunt 2y ago
> Can you imagine a member of Congress or the President saying this? definitely. The 2012 STOCK Act is routinely violated by members of congress who insider trade on information from congressional committees before laws are enacted. that money the openly argued about the legitimacy of in congress and Pelosi, for one, and Tommy Tuberville, for another argued that it should be allowed. Pelosi later changed her stance, but continues insider trading. you can find datasets for all this at (no relation...just interesting data) https://quiverquant.com https://quiverquant.com

sillywalk 2y ago

> "We hid all our assets to evade the law. Give us immunity from criminal money laundering evasion and we will only pay part of what we likely would have owed." > Can you imagine a member of Congress or the President saying this? Yes.

dylan604 2y ago
Well, we haven't gotten to that part just yet. Right now, we're still in the stage of deny deny deny even in the face of evidence and convictions. They are still in the deny stage.

yieldcrv 2y ago

> "We hid all our assets to evade the law. Give us immunity from criminal money laundering evasion and we will only pay part of what we likely would have owed." > We have those overseas money reporting laws that make it difficult for Americans to get bank accounts overseas. Let's use them! This is conflating two things. It is not criminal to move money offshore, and nothing suggested any money laundering occurred, because it is not necessary to launder money to move it offshore. And it is also not money laundering to obfuscate money's origin or destination. Money laundering requires a criminal origin and then obfuscation. Despite how much the US has convinced its entire culture to stigmatize the concept of moving money, the US is operating in its own bubble of hubris to suggest money has to stay within its ecosystem. It doesn't make any sense at all when you say it out loud does it? To your second point, the US has reporting laws on money held offshore legally, for US citizens. For banks, this is merely an additional compliance burden that disincentivizes them from dealing with small accounts because its not worth it. But at Sackler money, it is worth it. It is not hard to find someone to bank you as an American. And at Sackler levels of money you don't have to remain a US citizen, hence absolving the reporting requirements if they went that direction. Or when you have a second citizenship, you can just not tell the US about it, and you can just not tell the foreign bank about your US citizenship. Prosecute that on its own, if you find out. and finally, there are gaps in this reporting framework. FATCA treaty was a broad expansion of a country's power, to the limit of our global society in the continuum of history. And its not completely as omnipresent as the American psyche imagined. Just like the global sanctions attempt on Russia showed, its a nice try but now everyone can see how much is hubris in plain sight.

armada651 2y ago
> And at Sackler levels of money you don't have to remain a US citizen, hence absolving the reporting requirements if they went that direction. Renouncing your citizenship because you owe the US government money is generally not seen as a valid reason by the US government to renounce your citizenship.
- fuzzylightbulb 2y ago
  Nor should it be. These people are leeches whose very existence is antithetical to a healthy and just society. They've done immeasurable damage and then hide behind the courts to avoid any repercussions. Disgusting, the lot of them.
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  That’s not the reason you would say in your renunciation ceremony
  - swiftcoder 2y ago
    Even if they let you go through with the ceremony, it doesn't actually stop them coming after you.
lazyasciiart 2y ago
> and you can just not tell the foreign bank about your US citizenship Holding foreign assets that you did not report on an FBAR is a crime. Lying about it to the bank that asks if you are a US citizen wod be obfuscation to support a crime. I'm not sure why you are trying to argue that nothing criminal is being done in these scenarios.

chasil 2y ago

Consider a few issues: - the foremost among the perpetrators are dead - the rest of the family is culpable, but less so - the settlement money will now be entirely repurposed for legal defense - meanwhile the victims get nothing Does justice demand punishment or compensation?

pdonis 2y ago
That's basically the argument made in the dissenting opinion. I find the split among the justices here very interesting as it is not along party lines, as such splits usually are.
naasking 2y ago
> Does justice demand punishment or compensation? Which outcome provides the greatest disincentive against anyone else even contemplating doing something like this ever again?
BobbyJo 2y ago
It generally demands deterrence. Helping the victims out is great, and the proceedings should do that as best they can, but the largest benefit that can be brought to society as a whole is showing that doing these kinds of things will be bad for you.

jjtheblunt 2y ago

> Can you imagine a member of Congress or the President saying this? definitely. The 2012 STOCK Act is routinely violated by members of congress who insider trade on information from congressional committees before laws are enacted. that money the openly argued about the legitimacy of in congress and Pelosi, for one, and Tommy Tuberville, for another argued that it should be allowed. Pelosi later changed her stance, but continues insider trading. you can find datasets for all this at (no relation...just interesting data) https://quiverquant.com https://quiverquant.com