Home Scandal and Gossip Millionaire Ordered to Pay Wife $2.49Million for Giving her Genital Herpes After...

Millionaire Ordered to Pay Wife $2.49Million for Giving her Genital Herpes After Having an Affair


Be careful who you’re spreading herpes to if you’re a multi-millionaire, for Californian real estate investor George Saadian has been ordered to pay $2.49 million to his estranged wife, Kathrin, whom he infected after having a series of affairs with women he’d met on online dating sites catering towards gold diggin’ women prowling for hooks up with rich, and equally predatorial, men.

As the Daily Mail Reported: “The jury found [Saadian] liable for Sexual Battery, Fraud, Concealment, Negligence, and Infliction of Emotional Distress.” The report continues, saying, “The award included $250,000 for future medical expenses, $500,000 for past pain and suffering, $1.63 million for future pain and suffering, and $62,000 in punitive damages.”

Mrs. Saadian, who claims her husband is the only man she’s ever had sex with, said that Mr. Saadian began ‘soliciting and paying women for sex’ after finding them on dating websites such as SugarDaddie.com sometime during 2006. The couple had been married for some 16 years prior.

Reportedly, Mr. Saadian pretended to reconcile with his wife after being caught ‘only…in order to protect millions in assets’ by infecting her with herpes during the makeup sex and coaxing her into signing a series of shady documents causing her to forfeit her claim to all the couple’s properties.

The jury, which is said to have “overwhelmingly sided” with the Mrs., took only 4.5 hours to deliberate before coming to a verdict. But still, how does one really put a price on the pain of being betrayed and given herpes for the rest of your life?

That is, no matter what the lawyers said, how does one really calculate that ‘$1.63 million for future pain and suffering’ will account for all the physical and mental pain to be felt from such an affliction? If her husband had been richer isn’t it likely that she would have been awarded more money for her sufferings? And conversely, if he were poorer wouldn’t she have been left substantially less? If the crime’s the same how does one account for what would most probably be a marked difference?