No, it doesn't really say that at all. It says that staff reported to the board that they suspected doctors of diverting pills. In court, prosecutors would have to prove not only that a specific Sackler knew about this, but that they intentionally directed staff to continue supplying opioids to that doctor. The Sackler, in turn, would have an array of defenses, ranging from "I expected staff to stop supplying opioids to that doctor" to "I wasn't involved in that decision but merely present at a meeting where that statistic among many was discussed". The burden in a criminal case is far higher than "preponderance of evidence".
