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

511–520 of 633 posts

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#511

Post by artursapek »

kabdib wrote: post #496

A data point about medication: I just paid for a pair of EpiPens; the generic version was $337 a pair (last I checked, the non-generic version was over $600). I have pretty good health insurance, so I didn't pay that much myself, but my employer paid the rest. As a baseline, I had the pharmacist look up the equivalent medication for use with a syringe; a ten dose bottle was $5.99. I know, not the same thing. But this…

> This is an utter and corrupt racket. I'm writing my congressional representatives and senators. Again.

I agree with what you wrote, but they're going to do fuck-all about it.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#512

Post by jabgrabdthrow »

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…

Is this "fake news"?

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#513

Post by ptr_void »

velobro wrote: post #463
fmihaila wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watching it right now and it's fascinating. He has just been explaining to a Daily News reporter why his company charges what it charges for the various drugs it sells. More people should watch this before they make up their mind. It's only a live stream now, I hope it's going to stay on YT after it's done. (They're now arguing about what he considers distorted coverage of him in the press.)

Oh give me a break. The guy comes off as charasmatic in a YouTube video so you want to ignore his act of fraud? (Yes, I realize raising drug prices isn't illegal. That isn't what he was convicted for) You know who else was charasmatic and could get people to like him in light of all his actions? Adolf Hitler.

Ding ding ding ding [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#514

Post by fastball »

samsonasu wrote: post #495
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…

I'm pretty sure the "no harm no foul" defense doesn't hold water in a fraud case. A Ponzi scheme is illegal the entire time (because it's fraudulent) even though the early investors receive returns.

I'm pretty sure it does. A ponzi scheme absolutely does harm people through fraud, namely everyone left holding the potato. Sure, it doesn't harm everyone involved, but many people are harmed because of fraud.

In Shkreli's case, he didn't actually harm anyone through fraud, because although he committed fraud, he got them their money back through entirely legal, non-fraudulent means.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#515

Post by randyrand »

laughinghan wrote: post #466
randyrand wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not both? What he's doing, creating outrage legally, is one of the most effective ways to create positive change that actually affects the whole industry. And hes making money too! Win-win? He committed early on to give financial aid to those that could not afford the new drug's price. His conscious is rather clean. I see it no different to what most private schools do - charge a huge sticker price then offer aid…

> Why not both? Because doing so would kill people? > He committed early on to give financial aid to those that could not afford the new drug's price. Did he actually do this or just say he would? As has been noted by others through this thread, including by folks who like him, he's prone to lying. Also, are you really claiming that people of all incomes have equal access to expensive private schools?

Schooling still has a minimum price that needs to be charged to be sustainable. Teachers are not cheap, among other costs. Drugs do not. Drugs are very cheap to produce after the R&D. Financial aid (price discrimination) would work rather well for drugs (but we'd all end up paying more, generally, just like higher education).

As for whether he has implemented financial aid yet, I do not know. Bear in mind that only tens of people buy this drug a year, so implementing financial aid is almost as easy as just having an email account for requests.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#516

Post by fastball »

markdown wrote: post #447
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…

> 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.

I think turc1656 meant to say "he didn't want to defraud the people".

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#517

Post by fastball »

swang wrote: post #22
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…

> 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...

The epitome of "fake it 'til you make it"?

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#518

Post by Alex3917 »

fastball wrote: post #510
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…

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 ca…

> The only illegal thing he did was lie about it so that he could get them their money back.

You're missing the point; giving his investors 'their' money back was the thing he did that was unethical and illegal. If you're a fund manager and the value of your portfolio goes down after making bad bets, you can't just inject your own money into the fund to make it look like you have a positive track record so that you can solicit more outside funds.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#519

Post by fastball »

blahblah3 wrote: post #115
huac wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, everybody came out okay - Shkreli really made his investors a lot of money! Yeah, he lied, but he did some incredible work: typical fraudsters take your money and run - he doesn't fit that mold. Honestly, the issue was that he's an utter asshole, including to his investors. Investors are willing to put with a lot if you triple their money, but Shkreli managed to cross that line. That made him an easy target f…

Just because his investors made money doesn't excuse him. Suppose you lent 10,000 to a friend and the friend promised to return it within a year. A year later, your friend doesn't pay you back and makes a bunch of excuses. Instead, he takes the 5,000 he has left to the casino, gambles it on the roulette wheel and by luck manages to turn that into 30,000 and pays you back 1.5 years later. I don't think you would be ha…

You don't think intent and net harm should be considered in criminal cases? I'd like this sentencing to send a clear message to fraudsters that:

A. If you get caught, you're going to prison

But more importantly -

B. If, however, you work hard to ensure the people you defrauded are not harmed by your fraud, your sentence will be lighter than if you were the type of fraudster to cut and run.

I don't know about you, but in light of the fact that fraudsters are always going to exist, I'd like to incentivize the "benevolent fraudsters", rather than pretending (through equal sentencing) that there is no difference between the two.

Post reply on HN