Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 633 posts

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#191

Post by kbenson »

charlesdm wrote: post #107
kbenson wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NY Times article[1] presented by an early top level comment implies that no, they didn't. The investors who invested all made money — by the defense’s tally, more than triple what they invested. 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/04/business/dealbook/martin-...

I don't particularly like the guy, but I do believe him to be pretty smart. How can he be convicted of fraud if he got them a 3x return?

He lied about the current status of the fund for quite a while as he attempted to replace the money, and sent fraudulent reports showing good returns when all the money was lost. He later replaced all the lost funds with profits from the company he founded (and reportedly worked hard to make profitable).

I'm not sure whether that company was the one responsible for the drug price hike, and whether that constituted a lot of the profits or that actually went back into research as I believe he said it did during that episode.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#193

Post by austenallred »

charlesdm wrote: post #169
austenallred wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a jury trial that would absolutely sway things

Which, all things considering, is ridiculous. People shouldn't be able to be convicted because they're assholes (even if they are). I don't live in the US, but being convicted by a "jury of your peers" is frankly, ridiculous. When has the average person been able to grasp complex matters relating to say, securities fraud? Most people aren't even able to stay out of debt. A panel of judges with specialised experience…

You're not wrong. Humans are fallible and thus so are jury trials.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#194

Post by hellofunk »

MichaelGG wrote: post #177
hellofunk wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a reason why most international insurers will cover your health concerns everywhere in the world except the U.S. The American health system has out of control expenses that are putting immense strain on its every seam. Making distributors or insurance companies pay much more because "fuck them" (as Shkreli proudly said) only adds to a very serious problem in American healthcare.

Good, more people should do this until it breaks and reforms. And not just do it, but do it with his face and smile. Because companies have been doing this for a long time, but there's no one to direct the anger onto.

You sound quite a lot like Trump. "Just let it fail..."

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#195

Post by bdcravens »

jjxw wrote: post #118

There seems to be a misconception regarding what Shkreli was found guilty of. The legal case here has very little to do with the pharmaceutical pricing controversy - it is a separate case based on a separate hedge fund that he managed. The gist of it is that he took people's money to start a hedge fund, lied to investors that the fund was doing fine when the hedge fund went belly up, but ended up returning everyone's…

Similar to OJ's recent parole that had nothing to do with the murder he was accused of committing. MSM, the previous victim's families, etc, seem to be conflating the two.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#196

Post by elliotec »

charlesdm wrote: post #169
austenallred wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a jury trial that would absolutely sway things

Which, all things considering, is ridiculous. People shouldn't be able to be convicted because they're assholes (even if they are). I don't live in the US, but being convicted by a "jury of your peers" is frankly, ridiculous. When has the average person been able to grasp complex matters relating to say, securities fraud? Most people aren't even able to stay out of debt. A panel of judges with specialised experience…

It's a check/balance against state power, i.e. the judicial system. Many countries have used this method for centuries. It's not ridiculous because the idea is that (the diverse selection of) your peers are equal to you in most ways, so are able to fairly judge you. A judge still has a lot of power and usually ultimately the decision goes to them as far as sentencing etc.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#197

Post by emodendroket »

charlesdm wrote: post #169
austenallred wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a jury trial that would absolutely sway things

Which, all things considering, is ridiculous. People shouldn't be able to be convicted because they're assholes (even if they are). I don't live in the US, but being convicted by a "jury of your peers" is frankly, ridiculous. When has the average person been able to grasp complex matters relating to say, securities fraud? Most people aren't even able to stay out of debt. A panel of judges with specialised experience…

Relying exclusively on bench trials seems unappealing to me (and I guess to James Madison, who enshrined the right of trial by jury in the Constitution) because it creates a much easier environment for an arbitrary court system to throw people in jail who are innocent and removes other protections like jury nullification. You could look at Japan, which tried to solve its problem of innocent people going to jail by introducing a lay-judge system (kind of like jurors who can ask questions during the trial), for a real-life example of some of the problems you might have.

Clearly the US system is far from perfect but I don't think getting rid of juries would make it better.

Also, in practice, judges make rulings on things outside their expertise too.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#198

Post by blahblah3 »

Clubber wrote: post #143
blahblah3 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because his investors made money doesn't excuse him. Suppose you lent 10,000 to a friend and the friend promised to return it within a year. A year later, your friend doesn't pay you back and makes a bunch of excuses. Instead, he takes the 5,000 he has left to the casino, gambles it on the roulette wheel and by luck manages to turn that into 30,000 and pays you back 1.5 years later. I don't think you would be ha…

Honestly, I would be thrilled to triple my money in 18 months. Using the gambling analogy is disingenuous though.

I think that's being too results driven and doesn't take into account the risk that was taken. As another example, suppose your uber driver drove you home while intoxicated. Even if the trip ended up being fine (no accidents, smooth ride), you would still have valid justification for complaining about this.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#199

Post by watwut »

charlesdm wrote: post #169
austenallred wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a jury trial that would absolutely sway things

Which, all things considering, is ridiculous. People shouldn't be able to be convicted because they're assholes (even if they are). I don't live in the US, but being convicted by a "jury of your peers" is frankly, ridiculous. When has the average person been able to grasp complex matters relating to say, securities fraud? Most people aren't even able to stay out of debt. A panel of judges with specialised experience…

This is one of those cases where those doing downvoting really should explain why they downvote.

I personally agree with following:

* Defendant being dick or unpleasant should not affect guilty/not guilty verdict in fair justice system.

* Defendant being charismatic or seemingly intelligent should not affect guilty/not guilty verdict in fair justice system either.

* A panel of judges with specialised experience often makes a lot more sense than a jury.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#200

Post by discombobulate »

Sangermaine wrote: post #188
discombobulate wrote: post #77

I quite like Martin. I talked to him a few time on YouTube, whilst he was live streaming. He's whip-smart & knowledgeable. He does, however, have a couple of major flaws. 1) He trolls. Hard. 2) It seems he lies. Which I picked up from a previous news article. (He claimed to have ~$50mm under management @ his previous hedge fund. It was more like $1.6mm. Something like that). I can forgive the trolling. It's over the…

>He's whip-smart & knowledgeable. People keep saying this as if it matters. What did you expect, that he'd be a drooling idiot? So he's smart and personable. Of course he is, most con men are.

I wouldn't describe him as personable.

Being smart is a trait I admire. I learned from him. Especially from his mistakes.

Post reply on HN