Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

United States sells Wu-Tang album forfeited by Martin Shkreli

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 117 posts

Re: United States sells Wu-Tang album forfeited by Martin Shkreli

#81

Post by [deleted] »

nickysielicki wrote: post #68
gamblor956 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's disturbing that Skreli openly committed massive financial fraud and you're more concerned about the government doing its job. Skreli's investors didn't sue him because they profited from the fraud. It's the downstream investors who were harmed here, and they can sue Skreli...and the investors who profited from his fraudulent investments.

The only thing Shkreli is guilty of is risk laundering. Nobody was defrauded. Everyone got paid. He made a huge (relatively stupid) bet that could have hurt a lot of people, but he lucked out and was able to make everyone whole. Actually, a lot of his "victims" made a lot of money. > 4. How much did investors lose? > Nothing. Shkreli partly repaid them with Retrophin stock and several witnesses told the jury they end…

[deleted]

Re: United States sells Wu-Tang album forfeited by Martin Shkreli

#83

Post by BitwiseFool »

Joeboy wrote: post #77
BitwiseFool wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"offering $5000 for every strand of hair collected from HRC" Am I alone in seeing this as an act of a sophomoric troll rather than an actual bounty put on someone?

I wouldn't disagree with the former interpretation, but publicly offering thousands of dollars for something carries a real risk somebody will take you up on the offer.

It's strange because I think if the same $5000/hair offering were made for an average person it would be much more serious. But in my mind someone who is so prominent and guarded by the Secret Service is in virtually no danger from such an outlandish thing. But I do understand how someone would see it the other way and not be comfortable with the risk at all.

Re: United States sells Wu-Tang album forfeited by Martin Shkreli

#84

Post by JoshGlazebrook »

shiado wrote: post #59
isoprophlex wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW... It still is the album with the highest bounty on redacted

I gave up on private trackers after what.cd died. Has redacted surpassed what.cd?

Same, for music at least. Spotify/Apple Music provides anything I could want. But my tastes were never niche to begin with.

Re: United States sells Wu-Tang album forfeited by Martin Shkreli

#85

Post by gota »

hereforphone wrote: post #73
gota wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If putting a bounty to harass a person is not a crime it absolutely should be IMHO The day he started that he should be put in jail regardless of being on bail

For how many years?

Certainly less than thirty billion

I think there are people whose jobs are to determine the appropriate punishment for criminal actions. They might be able to give you a tighter upper bound

Re: United States sells Wu-Tang album forfeited by Martin Shkreli

#86

Post by happytoexplain »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #62
gota wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If putting a bounty to harass a person is not a crime it absolutely should be IMHO The day he started that he should be put in jail regardless of being on bail

>"offering $5000 for every strand of hair collected from HRC" Am I alone in seeing this as an act of a sophomoric troll rather than an actual bounty put on someone?

First, I think it can be both, and second, it's important to be careful around the common fallacious defense for shitty people where the implication is that they should not be judged or experience certain ramifications (legal or social) because "it's all just trolling", "for the luls", "you can't take what he/she says seriously", "it's your fault for getting offended", etc. There are certainly arguments to be made one way or the other in these cases, but one standout damning feature that's common to a lot of them (including this one) is that of public reception. If you encourage something, all that matters is how likely and severe the consequences of that are, regardless of whether you were "just trolling". If you're a famous and wealthy person with a cult of personality and a politically divided following (or even if you just hit a couple of those notes), it's your responsibility to not offer people thousands of dollars to get hair from your enemies, even under the (conveniently subjective) guise of sarcasm/joking.

Re: United States sells Wu-Tang album forfeited by Martin Shkreli

#87

Post by ggrelet »

Y_Y wrote: post #71
ValentineC wrote: post #5

I remember learning about this album because it was the request with the highest bounty on What.CD: https://www.reddit.com/r/trackers/comments/5abmpz/martin_shk... R.I.P. What.CD. :'(

I miss What and Oink. I didn't even bother finding out what the next incarnation was and trying to get an invite, I just gave up and got Spotify. There's still tons of good music that I only ever found on those trackers. The quality of recommendations was also peerless. Have any of the successors rebuilt that?

There’s RED: https://interviewfor.red/

Re: United States sells Wu-Tang album forfeited by Martin Shkreli

#88

Post by kgantchev »

defaultname wrote: post #55
kgantchev wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "financial crimes" seem to have no victims since none of his investors actually sued him. If he really defrauded them, as the government claims in their successful lawsuit and conviction, then I'm pretty sure they would have sued him also. Why haven't his allegedly defrauded investors sued him? BTW, let me quote one of his investors, Lindsay Rosenwald: Rosenwald testified that in 2012, Shkreli told him he was win…

>The "financial crimes" seem to have no victims since none of his investors actually sued him They were overt, literal, indisputable financial crimes. Not sure why you decided to scare-quote that. Making someone you defrauded whole again doesn't erase the crime. The notion that it would is ludicrous. >I guess in this Cancel Culture era Give it a rest. There is a truth that if you are a criminal you probably shouldn't…

> Making someone you defrauded whole again doesn't erase the crime. The notion that it would is ludicrous.

He didn't just make them whole, he made them a profit.

That's between the two parties that engaged in the contract, isn't it? They signed contracts that they're receiving shares of his other company and they're not going to sue him for the losses from his previous company. The end result is that they made a profit.

Anyway, what a criminal... he loses his investors' money in one venture and then he makes them a profit in the next. That's the sort of crime I like to see our government spend their resources on, not the 700+ yearly murders in Chicago.

Re: United States sells Wu-Tang album forfeited by Martin Shkreli

#89

Post by kmlevitt »

crispyambulance wrote: post #66
kgantchev wrote: post #3

I love how the government dug through the guy's entire life just to find something they could nab him on and straight up destroyed him. That's some G stuff!

To be fair, the only reason he got pinched was because he ripped off some very wealthy and powerful investors/partners in a ponzi scheme. The execrable stunt where he jacked-up the price of a rarely used but life-saving drug from $13/tablet to $750/tablet-- that was perfectly legal.

> To be fair, the only reason he got pinched was because he ripped off some very wealthy and powerful investors/partners in a ponzi scheme.

And barely even that. He lost/used their money and then paid it back before they even noticed. While it was wrong, as far as I can make out it was basically a victimless crime.

Meanwhile, it seems like price gouging medication people need to stay alive is still perfectly legal in the US. They scapegoated this little twerp to distract from the fact that the system is still badly corrupted and the politicians changed nothing of importance after this.

Re: United States sells Wu-Tang album forfeited by Martin Shkreli

#90

Post by happytoexplain »

hereforphone wrote: post #65
Falling3 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if your comment were heavily upvoted you would've reconsidered your position? Or will any outcome whatsoever just reinforce your existing ideas?

What are my existing ideas?

Your post was, "Never threaten a Clinton (I anticipate downvotes.. and they'll be reinforcing my position that they're off-limits)". Your position, AKA existing ideas, are "Never threaten a Clinton", and "they're off-limits", implying that they have special and unfair power/treatment in the political and legal world, but specifically with regards to the specific outcome of the specific case of Shkreli. The parent's criticism was in regards to your attitude on downvotes, which makes sense independent of whether your position is justified or true.
Post reply on HN