Can someone explain specifically what lies he told his investors to defraud them?
He claimed the fund was worth millions when it was really worth zero.
But then he tripled their money...
Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison
71–80 of 446 posts
Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
illegal is illegal
of course, but 7 years is a very long time. It could have been shorter, considering the lack of actual damages.
It might be interesting to try to map this onto English law and see what he'd get over here.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Frau...
Look at "Fraud by false representation", "fraud by failing to disclose information", "fraud by abuse of position", "Conspiracy to defraud", and "False accounting" (because some of these feel useful and the sentencing is similar).
When looking at culpability I'd say he matches all of these except targeting vulnerable people:
A – High culpability
A leading role where offending is part of a group activity
Involvement of others through pressure, influence
Abuse of position of power or trust or responsibility
Sophisticated nature of offence/significant planning
Fraudulent activity conducted over sustained period of time
Large number of victims
Deliberately targeting victim on basis of vulnerability
When looking at harm there are 2 categories: he probably meets the highest level for the first category:
Category 1 £500,000 or more Starting point based on £1
With culpability level A and harm level 1 you'd start with a 7 year sentence. Then you'd look at aggravating factors (did he try to hide the crime; did he try to prevent people reporting it) and mitigating factors (did he show remorse; was it a doomed enterprise; did he have a serious medical condition requiring intensive imminent treatment; etc) to increase or decrease.
Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison
#73Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 3. Prosecutors, needing to do something got him on fraud charges where he misstated information on an investment but still tripled their money. I don't think the outcome should matter. Lying to investors should land you in jail. It shouldn't become okay "if investors still made money"
> I don't think the outcome should matter. According to the article, "prosecutors had pushed for at least 15 years, saying Shkreli had not shown remorse for his actions" How come the jury is allow to consider his alleged lack of remorse but is not allowed to consider the outcome ? Both are current events
What jury? Federal criminal sentencing is done by the judge, not a jury.
Also, I don't agree with GP, but arguably the outcome is less relevant to the risk to society posed by reoffense than is genuine remorse or the lack thereof.
Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison
#75Harsh sentence for a case where all the money was paid back.
"Your honor, I must protest this sentence! After all, my clients paid back all the money they stole from the bank!"
Your sarcasm is showing your ignorance of the law. The level of monetary damages are absolutely considered when sentencing.
That is why Bernie Madoff, who caused billions in damages, got a very harsh sentence.
Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does 1,2, and 4 matter ? Did he defraud investors ? Yes. Was it illegal, yes ? How does it matter if he was a total douche. He would still be out and doing his thing if he didn't commit a crime.
Because the sentence was WAY harsher than normal because of 1,2 and 4. It was a white collar crime. NO monetary damages. And 8 years?? Clearly they sentenced him for 8 years for political reasons
Sentences are largely set by the guidelines published by the United States Sentencing Commission and are based on a standard table[1], which assigns "points" based on the severity of the crime and level of involvement [0]. While it's plausible his sentence was harsh for "political reasons", it's more likely that's just the way the points added up based on the facts of the conviction.
[0] https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines
[1] https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2016-guidelines-manual/2016-...
Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...Offending the public, whether right or wrong, has consequences. Shkreli is getting a taste of mob justice, or just what he asked for. Isn't that exactly what the justice system is in place to prevent?
The justice system is theoretically supposed to be somewhat isolated from this by limitations on democracy. But we've sort of morphed our way out of half of those limitations and we're almost getting the bad stuff without getting the good. The system is very prone to mass public opinion, but there's hardly anything any one individual can do to actively participate in the system. There used to be a strict upper limit…
>At the same time, people can get hyped up about what they read in internet tabloids or are told through the media, and politicians will be forced to respond to that.
This is spot on. That gives a heck of a lot of power to news organizations. That's scary when thinking of the quality and journalistic integrity of many, if not most news organizations. People react much more strongly to what they read/watch/listen to on the news. If the news can get them hyped up on a topic (opioid crises is the latest) then the politicians react, typically just enough to get the news off their back. We're left with ham-fisted solutions that make the problem worse. x30 years.
Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison
#78Here's what we just witnessed. 1. Companies were cornering certain drugs, then hiking their prices up significantly. Shkrelli did the same thing (but stated he was willing to give it free for anyone who asked). Note, that this is not illegal in any way, but news was all over it and citizens were pissed. 2. Shkrelli, being outspoken, became the focus of this issue. He dug a hole for himself, but concerning drug prices…
In addition, I noticed that our system punished him for defrauding the wealthy and not for jacking up drug prices, which harms the average American.
He didn't even defraud the wealthy. He played fast and loose but he won for his investors.
Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison
#79Really recommend watching Shkreli's interview with The Breakfast Club where he's attacked for all the things he's become infamous for in the public sphere (drug price hikes, wu-tang album, etc.)
The guy gets it, and played the game the way it was presented to him. He actually comes across as a very smart, thoughtful, and respectful guy that can roll with the punches and dish back when needed. Sure he's a bit of a troll, but can you blame him when some of the most public figures/role models currently in the US are paid and rewarded for extreme trolling? Feel he's been very misunderstood, and it's a shame he got the book thrown at him
Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison
#80Here's what we just witnessed. 1. Companies were cornering certain drugs, then hiking their prices up significantly. Shkrelli did the same thing (but stated he was willing to give it free for anyone who asked). Note, that this is not illegal in any way, but news was all over it and citizens were pissed. 2. Shkrelli, being outspoken, became the focus of this issue. He dug a hole for himself, but concerning drug prices…
Well, you seem to be saying that because the investment tripled, then no crime has taken place. That's not really how it works.
Exactly. Matt Levine has a good summary:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-02-28/big-compa...
"The government's argument is that those investors did lose money; it's just that Shkreli eventually paid them back after they started complaining. If your fraud loses money for investors, and they catch you, and you pay them back, then the losses still count. And while Shkreli has an argument that that's not what happened here -- that he gave Retrophin stock to the funds out of the goodness of his heart after they suffered honest losses, rather than to settle legal claims from disgruntled investors accusing him of fraud -- it is frankly not a very good one. And so he is getting tagged with the full amount that investors put into his funds, even though those investors all ultimately got paid back.
That seems analytically correct, though also a bit rough on him. Shkreli is obviously an unpopular character but he is not, as these things go, a particularly bad fraudster. His lawyers were seeking a sentence of "perhaps just 16 months or less," and that actually sounds about right to me for this sort of fraud. If he gets much more than that, I suppose it can be technically justified by legal arguments about the amount of loss that he caused, but I suspect it will really be driven more by his all-around dreadfulness."