Fraudulent marketing was the least of what they did.

Among other things, they set the recommended dosage and timing to maximize addictiveness (by repeatedly making the patients high, and then putting them in withdrawal).

Murderous intent seems like a pretty easy line...? If you know your product is unsafe and then proceed to sell it anyway, well, it's hard to have sympathy for your moral ambiguity.

I'm all for opening up new uncertainties for businesses. Especially when they involve criminal intent.

It's quite strange to me that business leaders love talking about how they are being rewarded for taking risks when it's used to justify disproportionate executive pay and stock buybacks for investors, but in all discussions of economic and even criminal regulation surrounding businesses, a business being made to accept some liability for putting others at risk is considered too risky for business. At present, large swaths of the business world are heavily subsidized by the government, can write off operating losses on their taxes, are often funded by hedge funds and investors who don't seem to mind them being deeply unprofitable for many years, and hold things like the IP rights produced by any worker they've employed as a treasure trove of potential value to sell off for the benefit of the owners should the business fail. On top of that, we must also believe that it's good and right that it is nearly impossible to prosecute any actual decision-maker within a company for criminal conduct done or harm caused by that company, or else business is just too risky and the economy might collapse?

To me this doesn't even warrant consideration, it's ridiculous on its face and perverts the notion of rule of law

So some of the Sacklers' assets can be considered when settling accounts w Purdue's creditors?