For instance:
> Officials from Argentina and the other Latin American country, which cannot be named as it has signed a confidentiality agreement with Pfizer, said the company’s negotiators demanded more than the usual indemnity against civil claims filed by citizens who suffer serious adverse events after being inoculated. They said Pfizer also insisted the governments cover the potential costs of civil cases brought as a result of Pfizer’s own acts of negligence, fraud, or malice. In Argentina and Brazil, Pfizer asked for sovereign assets to be put up as collateral for any future legal costs.
https://www.statnews.com/2021/02/23/pfizer-plays-hardball-in...
It'd be one thing if they were looking to defend against unforeseen damages. But this looks like they're trying to evade liability for crimes.
This in itself could – imo rightfully – be seen as a deplorable strategy because you are dictating these rules for a life saving vaccine. But it does not imply that you are committing any crimes at the moment.
In the UK there was an emergency authorisation which means that they will not be liable to the same degree.
As for why they do this: There is always a small chance that the vaccine will cause adverse health effects because pharmaceutical stuff is very complex. Minimizing legal risks is a completely normal thing in all industries and part of the negotiation process. I would not draw the conclusion that they aren't 100% convinced of their vaccine but instead that their team of highly paid lawyers told them what was a good business decision.