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

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#591

Post by circadiam » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 10:20 AM UTC

and0 wrote: post #57

cloakandswagger wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate? Who did Shkreli hurt here and how?

He was found guilty of defrauding investors. He started a fund, lost a bunch of the money trying to make more money for himself doing unrelated things with it, and only gave it back much later by repeatedly lying to the original investors and then making some of the money back via other means (turning it into stock in a new pharma company, iirc). It was wildly irresponsible and definitely fraudulent.

You sound like the type of person who thinks it’s mail fraud to use a couponbook delivered to a former tenant. I used to have a roommate like that.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#592

Post by sjy » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 10:21 AM UTC

JackFr wrote: post #301

watwut wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"because it creates a much easier environment for an arbitrary court system to throw people in jail who are innocent and removes other protections like jury nullification. You could look at Japan, which tried to solve its problem of innocent people going to jail by introducing a lay-judge system (kind of like jurors who can ask questions during the trial), for a real-life example of some of the problems you might hav…

Juries convict, but judges sentence. The incarceration rate is high because of strict sentencing guidelines written in the law and voters electing tough-on-crime judges. Eliminating jury trials would change none of that.

Federal judges, such as the one who will sentence Shkreli, are not elected.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#593

Post by usrusr » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 10:30 AM UTC

fastball wrote: post #514

samsonasu wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Getting money back is just one point in the probabilistic set of possible outcomes. Investment is all about risk, therefore you really cannot ignore that part.

Completely over the top illustrative example: you give me money for ten years to invest in real estate, because your investment portfolio is lacking in that sector. I blow it all on cocaine and hookers, then when the money is due I get nervous, buy lottery tickets and win. You get your money back, with a nice profit attached in the upper parts of what could be expected by a real estate investment. Was I a faithful manager of your money? Hell no! If you wanted lottery tickets you would have bought them yourself.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#594

Post by awl130 » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 10:41 AM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #415

dragonwriter wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When fraud happens those affected don't usually get their money back much less a return on that money. He defrauded and stole money from the investors in the pharma company to repay the people he defrauded and stole money from in the hedge funds. The one set of victims getting a return only happened by stealing returns belonging to the other set of victims. > However, it's pretty clear what he did is also fraud (fa…

> He defrauded and stole money from the investors in the pharma company to repay the people he defrauded and stole money from in the hedge funds. The one set of victims getting a return only happened by stealing returns belonging to the other set of victims. That is not at all what I read. It seemed like he personally made a lot of money from his pharma business, and used that to repay the investors of the fund? Can…

I agree, in fact the article specifically states that he was not found guilty of defrauding investors in his pharma business.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#595

Post by sattoshi » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 10:44 AM UTC

circadiam wrote: post #565

I first met Martin over a skype call and he was very humble—his identity online is just a brand. 2 years later, I stumbled into him again and asked him for advice on affording a cancer drug for a relative. He helped me find the charities and also introduced me to a contact at the pharma company. The internet prefers headlines over reality.

My experience matches yours. Martin is very nice person who just enjoys attention.

He didn't deserve this. Big Pharma deserves way worse though.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#596

Post by jonplackett » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 10:55 AM UTC

Does anyone know if they were already in the process of prosecuting him for this or is it a way to get him on something in response to him buying and hiking he prices of aids drugs, since that wasn't actually illegal.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#597

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:02 AM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#598

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:44 AM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #86

wfunction wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Okay, I'll bite. Why do you think he's human garbage. 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?

> 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…

[deleted]

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#599

Post by croon » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:46 AM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #273

amyjess wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Al Capone wouldn't have been prosecuted for tax evasion if he wasn't an infamous mobster. This is how society's immune system functions.

Al Capone wouldn't have had to evade taxes if he wasn't obtaining his income through illegal means. I also see a distinction between Capone and Shkreli in that Capone's other actions which may have influenced his trial were myriad illegal activities that they couldn't get evidence for. Shkreli is just believed to be an asshole.

Is the illegality of the other activities really relevant if they can't be prosecuted?

The justice system is meant to punish specific crimes, which it did done in both cases, but that doesn't prohibit you as a human to see it as karmic justice, for someone being a garbage human, wether legally or illegally.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#600

Post by snsr » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:56 AM UTC

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 off, he wanted to try to salvage what he could to make himself look good get them their money.

I think his behavior in both this case and in his "pharmaceutical" endeavor clearly demonstrate his willingness to rip people off.