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

421–430 of 633 posts

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#421

Post by turc1656 »

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'…

Very interesting. I certainly hope he gets more time than I am expecting. Personally, my gut is saying 1-2 years. I'd be happy if he gets 4-6 like you expect.

Definitely going to be interesting to hear the judges words during sentencing. I was listening to the Michelle Carter sentencing yesterday, as I was following that relatively closely. Now I'm waiting to see what happens here, but this is much more cut and dry than that case. I'm only interested because it's Shkreli.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#422

Post by hxegon »

burkaman wrote: post #368
MSM wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Trolling is lying Not at all, I think one of the most famous "troll" things he did was buy the master Wu-Tang album and threaten to destroy it so no one could ever hear the album. There's no lying or anything meant to "hurt" anyone there, but you can imagine that it rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.

Threatening to destroy it so nobody else can hear it is explicitly intended to hurt people who want to hear the album. If you don't mean to hurt anyone, by definition it isn't trolling. Maybe I'm stretching the meaning of lying, but I think it's dishonest to represent yourself as a patron of the arts, as the album was produced as a piece of art, when you're really bidding on it with the sole purpose of depriving othe…

except, no one was actually hurt. He didn't destroy the album (as far as I know). You could make an argument that it's a dick move, and I might agree, but it's his property to do with as he wishes.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#425

Post by nprog »

CalChris wrote: post #93
kbenson wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, his fraud seems to fall into two categories. Lying about his fund's bonafides and status on one side, and working hard to make sure those same investors got what they were expecting by founding a company, making it successful and paying them out from the profits. It sounds like he definitely lied to investors, but he apparently didn't intend to steal their money, and took pains to make sure he did not…

fraud != stealing fraud wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain stealing take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it No, Shkreli didn't intend to steal their money since they gave it to him. However, he did in fact deceive them as to what he did with said money. So he was convicted of fraud .

Wire fraud (1343) is both inchoate and a specific intent crime. To be convicted, it doesn't matter if there was an actual loss, but must be shown that the defendant intended to defraud, that is that "[T]he purpose of the scheme 'must be to injure'" (US v Regent). This is also the 2nd Circuit, which has the most substantive case law on wire fraud in the US (Regent, Starr, McNally, D'Amato, Skilling, etc). I should add that Shkreli was not convicted on his wire fraud counts, which are among the most blunt overused weapons a prosecutor has. Almost no one survives a wire fraud charge, yet Shkreli was. He was convicted of securities fraud and conspiracy (for the same), which are also specific intent, however, 'recklessness' specifically is insufficient in a wirefraud case (helpful but insufficient), whereas in securities fraud, scienter is often shown prima facie by reckless indifference for the truth. I believe most salespersons would fail this test in this context. And, virtually every startup I've ever reviewed has unwittingly committed securities fraud, and in the hands of a prosecutor, it's usually only a question of whether they are motivated to target you (for some crime, if only they can "find it") for general behavior they disapprove of, and less so motivated to target a clear crime.

https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-949-pr...

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#426

Post by wfunction »

KekDemaga wrote: post #305
wfunction wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your comment.

Take a look at wealth globally, if GDP was evenly distributed every year everyone would get roughly ten thousand dollars. That's pretax, thus the total average spend per human being be in direct cash payments or via governmental programs should not exceed that number in a fair system. In western nations the poor see double that number on average in cash compensation, and more than triple that number when you include…

It seems like you are completely missing the point. This has little to do with economic inequality. The issue is not that this guy had a random product and raised its price. If this had been a car or an iPhone, we could not have cared less if he had been "greedy" and selling it for $1M/piece. The issue is that this is medicine we're talking about. People don't view healthcare and medicine like they view ordinary services and products. Many people (perhaps not you) have a much higher threshold for what kind of practice is moral/ethical/acceptable in medicine. That's why even in the middle of a battlefield people think it is inhumane to prevent doctors from treating injured soldiers, the war be damned. There is more to humanity than money.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#427

Post by literallycancer »

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #409
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…

> The government likes to punish people for making them expend the time and effort of a trial While I understand why this is true, I hate it about our legal system. If you're not guilty then you shouldn't be coerced into a plea because of the draconian maximum punishment they hold over your head. This is evident nowhere more clearly than drug convictions, where they can lock you up for the rest of your life because y…

It's probably even simpler - the conviction is the deliverable produced by a prosecutor, and the thing that moves their career forward. So they are incentivized to always go for the harshest possible punishment, in the same fashion that a company chooses profits over everything else.

The system isn't malicious, it's just not designed to counteract this sort of thing.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#428

Post by wfunction »

Clubber wrote: post #279
wfunction wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Do you have any suggestions on how what exactly they should've done? Passed a law that says "you cannot increase the price of a drug beyond 5x" or something?

Just to throw something out there to start, I would limit price hikes over time, say 10% a year. I'm open to any alternatives.

Without even any mention of what the manufacturer can do to cover cost increases? You really think it can be so simple?

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#429

Post by cloakandswagger »

slantedview wrote: post #160
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…

Still a horrible person for so many reasons (including this one [1] the other day). [1] https://twitter.com/laurenduca/status/890960104262180865

Pretty funny if you ask me. They've had a long running and playful "feud" for a while now.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#430

Post by cloakandswagger »

lomnakkus wrote: post #420
downandout wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Perhaps that makes me a bad person.

Not bad, merely ignorant. You're celebrating the incarceration of someone you presumably know very little about, all while searching for "true" victims ("perhaps the public?") to fuel your indignation.

Post reply on HN