"Unjust enrichment" is a concept that doesn't really work for me. Who is to say when enrichment is just or unjust? If it is criminal, that's a different matter, but "unjust?" That sounds a little too much like our fascists overlords talking. Aunt Jemma died and left her nephew Jeeter a hundred million dollars. Jeeter never did a thing to earn that money. So is that "unjust enrichment?" Do we take the money away from Jeeter because he's a homeless bum with an alcohol addiction living in a cardboard box? Do we decide it would be more "just" to distribute it to niggers so that teenage sheboons can have litters of welfare niglets? I never much liked it when criminals had the incomes from their books taken away from them, merely because those books discussed their crimes. I tend to view the government seizure of such income as "unjust."
Yes, you make some solid points here.
Unjust enrichment in this context could easily also be called fraud, mass murder, crimes against humanity, and even more.
So yes, we do already have categories in our laws to cover this.
As far as seizing the proceeds of these particular crimes, there is a deterrent value to the loss of the ill gotten gains. The drug companies in this instance have deliberately poisoned millions of people, murdering many of them in the process, and have increased their own financial value by over a half trillion dollars so far. I think recovering these ill gotten gains, in this incidence, is highly justifiable, and the right thing to do.
Personally, I think the military should just shoot these people so that the proper message is sent. Some others may feel that is a bit extreme. I am a man of strong passions when it comes to crimes of this nature. Lucky for the perps it is not my decision.
(post is archived)