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

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#231

Post by wfunction » Fri, Aug 04, 2017, 8:05 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

Do you have any suggestions on how what exactly they should've done? Passed a law that says "you cannot increase the price of a drug beyond 5x" or something?

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#232

Post by QAPereo » Fri, Aug 04, 2017, 8:05 PM UTC

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…

Sociopaths, in limited circumstances, can sometimes be very charming.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#233

Post by Harimwakairi » Fri, Aug 04, 2017, 8:05 PM UTC

huac wrote: post #74

swang wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

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…

> ...he did some incredible work...

Can you elaborate on this?

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#234

Post by whipoodle » Fri, Aug 04, 2017, 8:05 PM UTC

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…

Yeah, that is definitely fraud. Though as a fraud victim you can't really ask for a better outcome.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#235

Post by Clubber » Fri, Aug 04, 2017, 8:05 PM UTC

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #157

Clubber wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So here is why it's important to take Shkreli down. Congress gets paid lots of money to not regulate pharmaceuticals. 13 democrats recently voted against a bill allowing the US to import Pharma from Canada, so it's both parties. https://newrepublic.com/minutes/139825/cory-booker-not-frien... Congress is in hot water over the cost of prescription drugs and they need to do something, and something fast ... as long as t…

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/...

I appreciate that link. I haven't seen that image though. The clarification isn't that inspiring. It seems to be arguing that they do in fact take money, it just isn't quite as much as the image represents. All of them fell back on their concerns that Canadian drugs don't satisfy our "safety standards." Honestly, if it were El Salvador or something, maybe, but Canada, not so much.

"The 13 Democrats did vote against one amendment that was intended to lower drug prices through reimportation of medicines from Canada, and they have each taken money from drugmakers."

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#236

Post by _delirium » Fri, Aug 04, 2017, 8:06 PM UTC

charlesdm wrote: post #220

elliotec wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a check/balance against state power, i.e. the judicial system. Many countries have used this method for centuries. It's not ridiculous because the idea is that (the diverse selection of) your peers are equal to you in most ways, so are able to fairly judge you. A judge still has a lot of power and usually ultimately the decision goes to them as far as sentencing etc.

Right. But thing is, they are not actually equal on specialised matters? I understand that it works when you're dealing with things like murder. That can be relatively clear. But how about hacking? Securities fraud? Money laundering? Tax fraud? These are all highly specialised issues that the average person knows nothing about. No average person, unless they have an interest in it, will be able to make a good call on…

There is a significant role for judges in trials as well, especially on complex technical issues. It's up to the judge to decide all "matters of law", for example which conduct would (if it happened) violate a law and which wouldn't. A judge can even throw out the indictment entirely, finding a defendant innocent as a matter of law, if they determine that the conduct alleged isn't actually a violation of any laws, even if it did happen. In complex fraud cases indictments being thrown out (or overturned on appeal) by judges isn't all that uncommon either.

Where it goes to a jury is when there's a dispute of fact rather than law: the judge has determined that whether the defendant violated the law or not depends on a fact disputed between the prosecution and the defense (e.g. whether the defendant actually did or didn't do something, or what the defendant's intent was). The jury then decides whether the facts support conviction, although even then they're typically guided by very specific instructions from the judge about what they would have to find in order to convict.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#237

Post by dclowd9901 » Fri, Aug 04, 2017, 8:06 PM UTC

charlesdm wrote: post #169

austenallred wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a jury trial that would absolutely sway things

Which, all things considering, is ridiculous. People shouldn't be able to be convicted because they're assholes (even if they are). I don't live in the US, but being convicted by a "jury of your peers" is frankly, ridiculous. When has the average person been able to grasp complex matters relating to say, securities fraud? Most people aren't even able to stay out of debt. A panel of judges with specialised experience…

Except, of course, this has a natural side-effect of incentivizing people to not be assholes.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#238

Post by discombobulate » Fri, Aug 04, 2017, 8:06 PM UTC

chippy wrote: post #202

discombobulate wrote: post #77

I quite like Martin. I talked to him a few time on YouTube, whilst he was live streaming. He's whip-smart & knowledgeable. He does, however, have a couple of major flaws. 1) He trolls. Hard. 2) It seems he lies. Which I picked up from a previous news article. (He claimed to have ~$50mm under management @ his previous hedge fund. It was more like $1.6mm. Something like that). I can forgive the trolling. It's over the…

> Fuck you people, frankly. 27 minutes ago You might find that waiting a few more minutes might make readers more sympathetic to your thoughts. Often I suspect some users may downvote because they see both the impatience and the swearing at "you people" which they see as being every user except you. Just a helpful hint. By the way, at 29 minutes, your comment was in the black and was not downvoted and was at #3. Welc…

I've been around HN for a while. It went from 2 points to 0 to 1. I had already written the edit. I decided to keep it.

I probably shouldn't have. I thought it would help. I guess it shows I'm human. I don't want to come across as a psychopath. I have a tendency to stick to ideas others feel are wrong (vs actually being wrong). Actually, HN is quite good on that front. Accepting logic.

Edit: Could have lied here. Just took the downvotes.

Edit2: Which is what I just learned. Better to be disliked & be truthful. In most cases. (Would lie to someone trying to murder me, for example. Despite what Kant says).

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#239

Post by emodendroket » Fri, Aug 04, 2017, 8:06 PM UTC

austenallred wrote: post #230

emodendroket wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But judges are infallible and thus so are bench trials?

Um no one said or even implied either of those things

It does seem to be implied if you are invoking human fallibility to bolster an argument that jury trials are bad.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#240

Post by watwut » Fri, Aug 04, 2017, 8:07 PM UTC

emodendroket wrote: post #197

charlesdm wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which, all things considering, is ridiculous. People shouldn't be able to be convicted because they're assholes (even if they are). I don't live in the US, but being convicted by a "jury of your peers" is frankly, ridiculous. When has the average person been able to grasp complex matters relating to say, securities fraud? Most people aren't even able to stay out of debt. A panel of judges with specialised experience…

Relying exclusively on bench trials seems unappealing to me (and I guess to James Madison, who enshrined the right of trial by jury in the Constitution) 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 in…

"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 have."

Practically, united states of america have biggest incarceration rate in the world, one of the most expensive legal systems (if not most expensive) and quite long sentences compared to other western countries. Jury nullification is basically never used and majority of jury members don't know about it.

I am not saying that other countries have flawless awesome court system, definitely not. But I have yet to read something that would convince me that jury is better or at least worth additional expenses.