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

441–450 of 633 posts

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#441

Post by [deleted] »

Barrin92 wrote: post #26
swang wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. yeah seems like a great dude...

"but he had a nice twitch stream" is just about the most absurd defense of someone involved in large scale corporate fraud I have witnessed in a long time

[deleted]

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#442

Post by emodendroket »

watwut wrote: post #360
emodendroket wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a refutation of the argument that juries are bad because the US has a lot of people in jail, though.

His argument was that juries prevent "arbitrary court system to throw people in jail who are innocent and removes other protections like jury nullification". There is nothing observable that would confirm that. They don't do that, they prevent pretty much nothing.

It says nothing one way or the other because the system isn't being used in those cases.

Put simply, if you want to make claims about whether jury trials or bench trials put more people in jail wrongfully by citing US incarceration data you have to somehow contend with the fact that the vast majority of cases don't go to a trial of any kind. Or at least have an argument as to why switching to bench trials would change that circumstance.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#443

Post by sillysaurus3 »

rhcom2 wrote: post #383
_xhok wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that "being cruel to strangers just to enjoy their suffering"? Also, you've commented in this thread about six times now with snarky remarks, unsubstantiated vitriol, and essentially "Martin Shkreli is a monster." Whether or not there's good reason to dislike him, I think you've successfully made your point.

>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. How is that not exactly "being cruel to strangers just to enjoy their suffering"?

Because it's a joke. Punish someone for their actions, not their words.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#444

Post by emodendroket »

zo1 wrote: post #407
emodendroket wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides being extremely disruptive to jurors' lives, you also have many of the same problems of an all-judge system (people becoming too close to prosecutors and wanting to the rule the "right" way, etc.) without the mitigation provided by the bar and full legal training.

Seemingly free and "just" governments have done much more "disruptive" things in the past, so there is precedent. E.g. Conscription and mandatory military training. Edit: Typo.

So what? Does that make it a good idea?

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#445

Post by emodendroket »

chki wrote: post #392
wfo wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right the US has a huge incarceration rate, but jury trials have nothing to do with this, since in the US trials functionally do not exist. I don't remember the numbers exactly (and they are changing and they differ by state/federal) but something like 1-5% of people thrown in jail actually go to trial.

But wouldn't the fact that trials might be favoring conviction (I'm not saying they do, but just as a hypothesis) also drastically change the outcome of those non-trial cases (mainly plea bargains, I guess)? If I expect to be convicted, I'm more likely to agree to a worse plea bargain.

I've not seen any reason to believe juries are more likely to convict.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#446

Post by hitekker »

sliverstorm wrote: post #330
moxious wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Charming and unbelievably intelligent" are definitely fair descriptors for this man, just please bear in mind that these terms probably describe many other people who are also guilty of fraud. Sure he has his side. And yes he's probably been treated unfairly by the press. And no, he isn't guilty of all of the things people say. And yet none of that makes him actually innocent.

It's funny how incredibly susceptible HN seems to be to the smooth talkers. Yeah, I know this person is technically being charged with being a Russian double agent and committing treason, but he just seems so down to earth, relatable, and smart! Swoon!

It certainly doesn't help that we, especially here on HN, conflate intelligence and morality.

"Ah this guy is smart, so he must be a good person!" or "this person is bad, well he must be an idiot!"

I'd argue, this mental shortcut stems from the way we view ourselves:

"I know I'm smart, but I don't know if I'm good, so I'll just set $smartness = $goodness so I no longer have to worry!"

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#447

Post by markdown »

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…

> As much as I dislike the guy, I do believe he didn't want to rip the people of

Not these rich people, no. He had no qualms about ripping off regular people with his other business though.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#449

Post by Dylan16807 »

downandout wrote: post #345
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. 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…

What's the definition of "intended" here? I would not normally say that someone desperately covering up business failures as they keep running it intends there to be any loss.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#450

Post by mcappleton »

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…

First, a judge can usually give a "directed verdict" of the person is obviously innocent.

Secondly it is much easier to pay off a judge and keep it quiet than a bunch of random jurors.

Thirdly judges can become calloused by virtue of their continued sentencing people to prison. They won't have the empathy that the jury will feel for both the accuser and the accused.

Fourth, the jury can ignore an outrageous law. For example oftentimes they refused to convict escaped slaves in the north.

Putting your freedom in the hands of one person who may very well be corrupt is much more dangerous than puttIng it in the hands of regular people.

Additionally I can't remember where, but I heard that 10 people or so working together usually come up with as good a solution as an expert anyways.

Post reply on HN