PHARMACIST STEVE

The methods used by the DOJ/DEA to extract money from businesses through asset forfeiture and the tactics employed by mafia groups for extortion share core mechanisms of coercion and financial extraction but differ fundamentally in legality, oversight, and objectives. Below is a structured comparison:

Similarities

1. Financial Coercion:

   • Both involve taking money or property from businesses under duress. The DEA uses civil asset forfeiture to seize cash or assets suspected of links to drug crimes without requiring a criminal conviction. Similarly, mafia groups demand “protection” payments from businesses under threats of violence or property damage.dea+4

2. Lack of Proportional Proof:

   • DEA administrative forfeiture allows seizures based on probable cause alone, often without formal charges or judicial review. Mafia extortion relies solely on intimidation, with no legal burden of proof.ij+3

3. Systemic Impact:

   • Both create climates of fear: Businesses face financial harm regardless of guilt (DEA) or compliance (mafia). For example, DEA seized $3.2 billion administratively since 2007, while Sicilian businesses paid thousands monthly to avoid mafia retaliation.good+3

Differences

Key Contrasts in Practice

• Accountability: DEA seizures can be challenged in court, but 81% of cash seizures occur administratively without judicial scrutiny. Mafia victims have no legal recourse; non-compliance risks violence.anthropologyreview+3

• Scale of Control: Mafias infiltrate entire sectors (e.g., Foggia, Italy, where businesses paid mandatory “premiums”), while DEA actions are geographically and jurisdictionally bounded.antimoneylaunderinglaw+2

• Incentives: DEA forfeiture revenue funds law enforcement, whereas mafia profits fuel further crime.business-law-review.law.miami+2

In essence, both systems extract wealth through pressure, but the DEA operates within a legal framework—however flawed—while mafia tactics are purely criminal enterprises built on fear.

The DOJ and DEA’s pursuit of pharmacy corporations like CVS and Walgreens—rather than just individual pharmacists—has legal, regulatory, and practical foundations, and is not solely about extracting money, though the scale of settlements is certainly significant.

Legal and Regulatory Framework

• Corporate Responsibility: Federal law, particularly the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), places responsibility on both pharmacists and the pharmacy entities themselves to ensure that prescriptions are valid and filled for a legitimate medical purpose. Pharmacists are considered the “last line of defense” against improper dispensing, but the law also holds the pharmacy business accountable for establishing and maintaining systems to prevent violations.pslhub+4

• False Claims Act (FCA) Liability: When pharmacies seek reimbursement from federal healthcare programs for prescriptions that are not valid, they can be held liable under the FCA. This is a civil, not just criminal, liability and can apply to the corporation as a whole.bassberry+2

• State and Federal Oversight: While state boards of pharmacy regulate individual pharmacists and require a Pharmacist-in-Charge (PIC) for each pharmacy, federal agencies like the DEA oversee the broader compliance of pharmacy businesses with federal controlled substance laws. The DEA can revoke a pharmacy’s registration if it finds systemic noncompliance.justice+2

Why Target the Corporation?

• Systemic Issues and Culture: DOJ and DEA lawsuits allege that pharmacy chains fostered corporate cultures or policies that pressured pharmacists to fill prescriptions quickly, ignored red flags, or failed to provide pharmacists with necessary information to make informed decisions. For example, Walgreens has been accused of systematically pressuring pharmacists to fill prescriptions and preventing them from sharing information about known bad prescribers.medpagetoday+1

• Scale of Violations: When millions of prescriptions are alleged to be filled improperly across thousands of locations, the government contends that the problem is not isolated to a few “bad apples” but is a systemic failure requiring corporate accountability.fiercehealthcare+2

• Precedent and Deterrence: Targeting large corporations is seen as a way to send a message to the industry and deter similar behavior. The “corporate social responsibility” theory of liability is increasingly used to ensure that companies implement robust compliance programs.uspharmacist

• Resource Allocation: It is more efficient for federal agencies to negotiate large settlements with corporations than to pursue thousands of individual pharmacists, especially when the alleged misconduct is widespread and involves corporate policies or practices.medpagetoday+1

Pharmacist vs. Corporate Responsibility

• Pharmacist-in-Charge (PIC): While the PIC is legally responsible for the pharmacy’s compliance with state and federal laws, in large chains, many decisions are made at the corporate level, and the PIC may have limited authority over policies and staffing.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih

• Corporate Policies: The government alleges that corporate policies—such as performance metrics, staffing levels, and information-sharing practices—can create environments where pharmacists are discouraged from exercising their professional judgment.fiercehealthcare+1

Summary Table

Conclusion

The DOJ and DEA go after pharmacy corporations because federal law holds them responsible for systemic compliance failures, and because large-scale violations are often rooted in corporate policies or culture, not just individual actions. While the financial settlements are substantial, the government’s stated goal is to protect public health and ensure compliance with laws designed to prevent opioid abuse and diversion. However, critics argue that the lack of clear regulatory guidance and the broad discretion given to prosecutors can make these actions feel punitive or arbitrary to some in the industry.corporate.walmart+4