Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

Post by kbenson » Fri, Aug 04, 2017, 8:48 PM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #281

kbenson wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although, interestingly, he didn't steal their money, he lost it in a bad trade, which is probably (maybe?) covered under the risks associated with the fund's operation. The deception was not telling people their money was gone (and also lying somewhat about details of the fund initially). Given that the loss was an accident that he didn't profit from, and that he worked to repay the money, there's a critical differe…

The fraud part, which also happens to have been the illegal part, is that he misrepresented the size of the situation while soliciting investments. It might eventually have been true, but was specifically not true at the time he made the statements he made. That said, I agree that my analogy was bad, and I wasn't trying to assert that Shkrelli deliberately set the house on fire as much as I was just looking for an ap…

Post by emodendroket » Fri, Aug 04, 2017, 8:48 PM UTC

jliptzin wrote: post #304

emodendroket wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 in…

I think at the very least there should be some kind of juror training process. You'd still tap people from the general public, but these people could maybe serve up to 5 year terms where being a juror is their full time job for that time period, they're trained in advance, they go through some kind of testing period, maybe shadow a couple other juries, and then they go on to serve on real juries. Obviously this would…

Post by jmcgough » Fri, Aug 04, 2017, 8:49 PM UTC

legohead wrote: post #12

Clubber wrote: post #5

I use to hate this guy, then I saw the Vice interview on him. It was nice to see his side of the story. I don't know much about this case in particular. It was kinda sleazy to see the congress question him about his price increases when they knew damn well it was perfectly legal and they haven't done anything to stop it. Shkreli seems to be trying to expose this hypocrisy, but the news loves their stories. Vice inter…

The YouTube video of him doing an Ebay Analysis [1] was very interesting I thought, both from a technical point of view and another look at his character. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFSf5YhYQbw

Post by emodendroket » Fri, Aug 04, 2017, 8:50 PM UTC

chrischen wrote: post #331

charlesdm wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

People can’t grasp complex matters and lawyers specifically choose the least intelligent easiest to sway and manipulate people to serve on juries.

Post by BartSaM » Fri, Aug 04, 2017, 8:51 PM UTC

jjxw wrote: post #167

emodendroket wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that's true, but the article seems to suggest that his brash persona/public conduct made it hard for him to win the case.

There was a joke floating around somewhere (Matt Levine I think?) that one strategy to avoid a jury trial proceeding was to become so publicly infamous that it would be impossible to select an unbiased jury. Clearly didn't work out for Shkreli in this case.