Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud • Hacker News Board

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#501

Post by slap_shot » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 1:17 AM UTC

FWIW, Shkreli has said several times on his YouTube channel that he predicted he was serve 2 years and be done. From what I've heard, he'll be sentenced 3-5 and and serve 80% with good behavior. He had an excellent defense and this was probably known from the beginning.

Interestingly, I don't think he pretends that what he did was right - it just understood it was a means to an end: two years in white collar "prison" for 30-70MM when he had less than $1,000 in the bank and owed creditors north of 1MM.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#502

Post by lend000 » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 1:24 AM UTC

lomnakkus wrote: post #473

cloakandswagger wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

No, I think you actually mean bad . (That's not to say I don't understand your sentinment towards me , but really... I haven't hiked prices on life-saving medicines by upwards of 1000%, etc., so at least I win on moral relatisivm points?) This man has harmed quite a few people... or their insurance companies... which of course means harming of their customers, i.e. "us" (who can even afford insurance). I know enough…

> I know enough about Shkreli to consider him an awful, awful person.

That isn't what this trial is about. Just because you don't like someone because of one thing, doesn't mean they should be getting a harsh sentence for a separate crime (which apparently had no victims).

Perhaps instead of vilifying characters who break the not at all free market pharmaceutical industry, and name-calling people who espouse ideologies that conflict with your pre-existing beliefs, you should instead consider why a single guy was able to stir up so much trouble in your heavily regulated medical industry. Was it because there wasn't enough government to protect people? Or was it more likely due to an extremely high barrier to entry to the pharmaceutical industry imposed by the FDA? (And in other cases, excessive IP protections play a significant role).

I'll leave it as an exercise.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#503

Post by kbenson » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 1:38 AM UTC

throwawayjava wrote: post #497

kbenson wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obtaining a license just to increase a drug's price from $13.50 to $750 for no apparent reason other than greed isn't enough for you? This case isn't about that. Are you suggesting we should convict and punish people on trial for one crime because we don't like their past activities and behaviors? Even if those other behaviors were illegal, they should be considered during a separate trial that's actually pertainin…

> This case isn't about that No. It was about fraud. Why should we NOT punish people for fraud? The ways that question are answered in this thread prove your assertion is false. This case IS about that, because without that, he'd just be one more pennyless felon.

> Why should we NOT punish people for fraud?

Who said he shouldn't be punished? I simply stated that since he made restitution prior to charges being brought, perhaps that should factor into sentencing. I don't know who you're arguing against, or what you're really arguing, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I've been talking about.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#504

Post by slewis » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 1:38 AM UTC

turc1656 wrote: post #421

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'…

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 t…

It'd be interesting to hear why you'd like 4-6 years. I'm not judging your preference or response, really just curious.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#505

Post by FLUX-YOU » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 1:41 AM UTC

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.

>Screwing insurance companies means increased costs for everyone.

They already increased prices. And they've made an entire clusterfuck in terms of billing codes, bureaucracy, and negotiations before ACA anyway.

Insurance company does poorly while my health improves? My rates go up.

Insurance company does well? My rates stay steady.

I had a car insurance agent tell me this exact reason today. Their underwriters simply increased the price because the company isn't doing well.

Insurance prices can't always go up. Something is going to break. And we're all going to pay a shitload of money and have a bunch of fallout either way.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#506

Post by kbenson » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 1:42 AM UTC

throwawayjava wrote: post #494

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…

Just to be clear, this is LITERALLY equating business success with ethical/legal conduct.

> Just to be clear, this is LITERALLY equating business success with ethical/legal conduct.

No, it's equating restitution and intent with lenient sentencing.

Even if I grant that he intended to defraud people initially (which doesn't appear to be the case), that's still analogous to if someone stole your car, but later had a change of conscience, returned it, and had also fixed your dents and given it a new paint job to make amends. Are they guilty of theft? Yes. Should they be punished? Probably. Should they get the same punishment as someone who stole your car and crashed it, or stole it and sold it? I don't think so. That's leniency. You may have a different opinion.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#507

Post by tompetry » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 1:47 AM UTC

sp527 wrote: post #117

The government and media couldn't have asked for a better outcome. The actual criminals on Wall Street and in Big Pharma, who had the foresight to line the right pockets, go ignored and the outsider who drew the ire of the public - for a decidedly amoral business decision with poor optics - is very publicly castigated. It's a win all around for a monumentally corrupt establishment, which has once again deferred meani…

Didn't think of it this way. So true.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#508

Post by wcummings » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 1:48 AM UTC

slewis wrote: post #504

turc1656 wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

It'd be interesting to hear why you'd like 4-6 years. I'm not judging your preference or response, really just curious.

Seems like a sorta horrible thing to say imo, 6 years is a long time to spend in prison.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#509

Post by cornedor » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 1:49 AM UTC

Froyoh wrote: post #477

turc1656 wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

I'm willing to say less than 1 year, we'll see who's right ;)

He just said in a podcast with h3h3 that it would something like 6 months.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#510

Post by fastball » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 1:54 AM UTC

turc1656 wrote: post #421

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'…

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 t…

Why do you favor harsher sentencing for him?

As a hedge fund manager, losing money is not illegal. The only illegal thing he did was lie about it so that he could get them their money back.

It would've been perfectly legal for him to lose all his clients money in the hedge fund, make them aware of this fact, and reap the profits from his pharma business without dishing it out to his hedge fund clients.

As far as I can tell, Shkreli turned a technically legal "I fucked up and lost your money scenario" into a technically illegal I fucked up, lost your money, but got it back to you scenario.

If I was part of Shkreli's hedge fund, I would much prefer to be involved in the latter scenario than the former.

Sure, I could sue Shkreli to recoup some of my hedge fund losses, but this way they didn't need to.