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

411–420 of 633 posts

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#411

Post by downandout »

artursapek wrote: post #357
downandout wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When fraud happens those affected don't usually get their money back much less a return on that money. That will be a footnote at sentencing. Federal sentencing is generally based on intended or actual loss, whichever is greater . Further, the judge is allowed to take into account intended losses from his entire course of conduct, not just the intended losses from the specific counts on which he was found guilty. In…

It will be interesting to see the sentence. He definitely seems to disagree with you: https://twitter.com/SamTheManTP/status/893552820548403201 Q: How much time do you likely face? Shkreli: Uh I'm guessing none on the short side 6 months long side

I could see that he was expecting something like that based upon his press conference outside the courthouse. I think he's in for a very rude introduction to the concept of "intended loss" and the federal sentencing system in general.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#412

Post by icantdrive55 »

turc1656 wrote: post #371
downandout wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When fraud happens those affected don't usually get their money back much less a return on that money. That will be a footnote at sentencing. Federal sentencing is generally based on intended or actual loss, whichever is greater . Further, the judge is allowed to take into account intended losses from his entire course of conduct, not just the intended losses from the specific counts on which he was found guilty. In…

I disagree. I think it will be a major factor at sentencing. First the fact that he did give them their money (with a significant return on it) back to the people well before the government got involved (meaning it wasn't a PR show) to me means there was never any intent for them to actually lose money. I think the judge will see it the same way. Because if that weren't true, he would never have repatriated the money…

If he gets any time it will be for the Drug pricing scandal.

So many CEO's/executives break so many laws. This guy just embarrassed all of the cogs in the game. He was an easy target for lazy federal workers. Plus--I imagine people around him gave up information freely?

He will be sentenced like O.J was in Las Vegas. Meaning--not for the Las Vegas crime, but the LA crime.

On a side note, I always felt Marty needs some lovin. He just screamed I need a relationship. All the reaching out a social media. All the coy looks. The little boy lost/missuderstood/lonely boy in the hoodie? I hope when he gets out, some patriotic lady takes care of him. I hope he doesn't need to pay, and it's a honest relationship. I feel his ego will still be warped though? "But I'm special? I deserve a model type?" There's usually a psychological reason men go to great lengths to make money. It's not just for financial security.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#413

Post by 65827 »

dgacmu wrote: post #376
chrischen wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's the kind of claim for which it's useful to have a citation. Because it's not generally true. This is an old study ('76), but they found that the jury selection processes biases against both high and low educational attainment, for example: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3053202?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con... One of my friends just served on the jury for a murder trial. He's got a Ph.D.. From my recollection, at leas…

A study from 1976 might as well be from 976, we still ate humans and worshipped star gods back then.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#414

Post by eyeownyde »

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

He's doing something similar, looking at some companies in the video game industry right now, live.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvArpDQHf-Y

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#415

Post by oh_sigh »

dragonwriter wrote: post #388
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…

> When fraud happens those affected don't usually get their money back much less a return on that money. He defrauded and stole money from the investors in the pharma company to repay the people he defrauded and stole money from in the hedge funds. The one set of victims getting a return only happened by stealing returns belonging to the other set of victims. > However, it's pretty clear what he did is also fraud (fa…

> He defrauded and stole money from the investors in the pharma company to repay the people he defrauded and stole money from in the hedge funds. The one set of victims getting a return only happened by stealing returns belonging to the other set of victims.

That is not at all what I read. It seemed like he personally made a lot of money from his pharma business, and used that to repay the investors of the fund?

Can you please source your statement?

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#416

Post by jedberg »

watty wrote: post #8
jedberg wrote: post #4

I understand that what he did was morally abhorrent, but I don't understand why it was illegal? Maybe a lawyer can give a quick summaray?

Did you read the article? > Prosecutors argued that Shkreli lied to investors in two hedge funds and the pharmaceutical company Retrophin, all of which he founded. Shkreli told investors he graduated from Columbia University, that his hedge fund was large and profitable, and that he had hired an auditor, they said. These were all lies, according to prosecutors.

The article didn't have any of that when I read it.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#417

Post by turc1656 »

artemisyna wrote: post #380
turc1656 wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I think it will be a major factor at sentencing. First the fact that he did give them their money (with a significant return on it) back to the people well before the government got involved (meaning it wasn't a PR show) to me means there was never any intent for them to actually lose money. I think the judge will see it the same way. Because if that weren't true, he would never have repatriated the money…

If you don't mine me asking, are you actually a lawyer or are you just speculating?

Definitely not a lawyer. Total speculation on my part.

I am just trying to come to some sort of logical conclusion about how the judge might approach sentencing, using my limiting knowledge of law.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#418

Post by lend000 »

turc1656 wrote: post #371
downandout wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When fraud happens those affected don't usually get their money back much less a return on that money. That will be a footnote at sentencing. Federal sentencing is generally based on intended or actual loss, whichever is greater . Further, the judge is allowed to take into account intended losses from his entire course of conduct, not just the intended losses from the specific counts on which he was found guilty. In…

I disagree. I think it will be a major factor at sentencing. First the fact that he did give them their money (with a significant return on it) back to the people well before the government got involved (meaning it wasn't a PR show) to me means there was never any intent for them to actually lose money. I think the judge will see it the same way. Because if that weren't true, he would never have repatriated the money…

> Also, harm/damage is a big consideration in sentencing.

That's how it should be. However, if that were really the case, poor Ross wouldn't be serving two life sentences.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#419

Post by dgacmu »

65827 wrote: post #413
dgacmu wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the kind of claim for which it's useful to have a citation. Because it's not generally true. This is an old study ('76), but they found that the jury selection processes biases against both high and low educational attainment, for example: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3053202?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con... One of my friends just served on the jury for a murder trial. He's got a Ph.D.. From my recollection, at leas…

A study from 1976 might as well be from 976, we still ate humans and worshipped star gods back then.

Even worse, Star Wars was 1977... In 1976, we were still worshiping Rocky Balboa!

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#420

Post by lomnakkus »

downandout wrote: post #398
turc1656 wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I think it will be a major factor at sentencing. First the fact that he did give them their money (with a significant return on it) back to the people well before the government got involved (meaning it wasn't a PR show) to me means there was never any intent for them to actually lose money. I think the judge will see it the same way. Because if that weren't true, he would never have repatriated the money…

Let me start by saying that what you are saying probably should be the way it plays out in this case. Everyone seems to have made money. I was just stating how it actually plays out in the vast majority of federal cases, and will likely play out here. In this case, because of the amount involved, the guidelines will call for a substantial prison sentence (well over 5 years). There is actually a loss table (again, we'…

EDIT: OK, nevermind, I guess.
Post reply on HN