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

431–440 of 633 posts

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#431

Post by RunawayGalaxy »

Sangermaine wrote: post #162
RunawayGalaxy wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, he claims that he gave the medicine away for free to people who could prove they couldn't afford it, so that he was really only screwing insurance companies. I believe that he was trying to draw media attention to the outrageous, legally-allowed colluding practices of the insurance and pharma industries. It would have been in his best interest to not draw attention to himself and slowly raise the price of the d…

>FWIW, he claims that he gave the medicine away for free to people who could prove they couldn't afford it, Sorry, I find it hard to take the word of someone who was convicted of committing fraud. Fraud that was committed before these claims were made. I guess defrauding his investors was also some 11th dimensional chess move designed to show the weakness of the financial industry, right? Move over Jesus, we have a n…

That's an extremely valid point. But there are documented cases of it being true.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#432

Post by nprog »

charlesdm wrote: post #220
elliotec wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right. But thing is, they are not actually equal on specialised matters? I understand that it works when you're dealing with things like murder. That can be relatively clear. But how about hacking? Securities fraud? Money laundering? Tax fraud? These are all highly specialised issues that the average person knows nothing about. No average person, unless they have an interest in it, will be able to make a good call on…

You can always request a bench trial (which must be approved by the prosecutor), and you probably should for any sufficiently complex matter, where bench trials have a 55% acquittal rate vs 80-something % for jury trials (if someone wants a source, I'll try to find it; these figures came from a study). Jury trials work when there are emotional and subjective aspects, especially around intent. The jury in Shkreli returned to the judge for a formal definition of fraudulent intent, and then he was not convicted on wire fraud, meaning that they didn't find for specific intent. If the jury was not properly instructed on the elements of the crime and the issue was raised, it may be a reversible error and I'm anxious to see how the appeal is argued.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#433

Post by ams6110 »

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…

Prosecutors don't charge people if they aren't fairly confident that the evidence will result in a conviction. However they will also be willing to bargain for a plea to save the effort and expense of a trial. This lets them get more cases through the system in less time. They (or the police) might also try to pressure a suspect to confess, just to see if he will. That saves them even more time.

So bottom line, you should never admit or confess to anything. If the prosecutor has enough evidence, he'll probably start with an offer of a plea deal. If his evidence is marginal, he might try to get a plea but likely won't bring charges if he thinks his chances in court are iffy.

If you go to trial anyway, in the face of strong evidence against you, then you've probably lost your chance at a light sentence, modulo how good a defense you can afford.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#434

Post by aseipp »

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…

> Shkreli seems to be trying to expose this hypocrisy, but the news loves their stories.

Ahhh, my favorite pastime, exposing hypocrisy. To do this, you have to play 47 dimensional chess. My recommended strategy for this is to defraud investors and then get rich off price-jacking pharmaceuticals. It's a proven strategy!

(Proven to get you convicted.)

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#435

Post by RunawayGalaxy »

ceejayoz wrote: post #80
RunawayGalaxy wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, he claims that he gave the medicine away for free to people who could prove they couldn't afford it, so that he was really only screwing insurance companies. I believe that he was trying to draw media attention to the outrageous, legally-allowed colluding practices of the insurance and pharma industries. It would have been in his best interest to not draw attention to himself and slowly raise the price of the d…

> FWIW, he claims that he gave the medicine away for free to people who could prove they couldn't afford it, so that he was really only screwing insurance companies. Screwing insurance companies means increased costs for everyone . I'd really rather not pay 20% higher premiums every year to pad someone like Shkreli's pocketbook.

You'd rather let an entire industry continue to screw over millions of Americans out of money and access to healthcare, than let one troll and admittedly fraud profit from exposing said industry? Fair enough.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#436

Post by paulgb »

0xbear wrote: post #218
paulgb wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bumping the price of a drug is not illegal. Shkreli was found guilty for fraud unrelated to the drug price hike.

Did I say otherwise? Is there any doubt in your mind as to why they went after him though? How many other hedge fund managers do you know of that have ever seen the inside of a jail cell?

You didn't say otherwise, but it seems to explain why he was prosecuted while Bresch was not.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#437

Post by ImSkeptical »

freehunter wrote: post #288
ImSkeptical wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but the solution is not to wish that people like Shkreli don't raise prices on their drugs. Instead, we need to reform the US healthcare system to stop problems like this. Many drugs of similar kind, as Shkreli would point out, have a similar price. The difference is that those drugs are owned by faceless pharmaceutical companies with PR teams. Shkreli was an obnoxious person who was doing an obnoxious thing an…

>the solution is not to wish that people like Shkreli don't raise prices on their drugs I can wish whatever the hell I want to wish. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right, and everyone here arguing that he's a good person because he's not doing anything illegal is inherently arguing that "legal" == "morally right". No. He's still a shitty person and I can wish him the most painfully infected ingrown toenail…

You can absolutely wish whatever you like. That doesn't change the fact that you wishing is not the problem to a poor healthcare system.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#438

Post by ImSkeptical »

Sangermaine wrote: post #168
ImSkeptical wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but the solution is not to wish that people like Shkreli don't raise prices on their drugs. Instead, we need to reform the US healthcare system to stop problems like this. Many drugs of similar kind, as Shkreli would point out, have a similar price. The difference is that those drugs are owned by faceless pharmaceutical companies with PR teams. Shkreli was an obnoxious person who was doing an obnoxious thing an…

>Sure, but the solution is not to wish that people like Shkreli don't raise prices on their drugs. Instead, we need to reform the US healthcare system to stop problems like this. The solution is both. Just because a broken system allows you to get away with being a monster doesn't justify you being a monster.

I disagree. Only one of those solves the problem. Reforming the healthcare system will (ideally) prevent harmful exploitation. Wishing will do nothing, even if it's your birthday wish.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#439

Post by Miner49er »

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.

It almost did, I believe it took something like over 200 potential jurors before they found a unbiased jury.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#440

Post by vogt »

emodendroket wrote: post #147
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…

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.

Probably, but I hope we haven't entered a world where we lock people up based on not liking their tone or attitude.
Post reply on HN