
Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud - fmihaila
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/08/04/martin-shkreli-jury-enters-fifth-day-of-deliberations/
======
jjxw
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 money plus a sizable return when his
separate pharmaceutical venture went well.

When fraud happens those affected don't usually get their money back much less
a return on that money. However, it's pretty clear what he did is also fraud
(false documents, not returning people's money when they asked for it) even if
the fact that investors came out better makes the plaintiffs less sympathetic.

~~~
downandout
_> 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 other words, the fact that his investors lost no actual money will have
little bearing on his sentence. I don't know what the actual amount he took in
was, but he will be sentenced for a multimillion dollar fraud scheme, and
because he went to trial and lost, he'll get nowhere near the minimum. The
government likes to punish people for making them expend the time and effort
of a trial (in 2012, 97% of federal cases ended with a guilty plea instead of
a trial [1]). He's probably looking at 5 years at best.

[1]
[https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443589304577637...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443589304577637610097206808)

~~~
turc1656
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 back to pay them out. He would have
just said "oops, I lost it" and continued about his regular business. 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. He just chose a deceptive, illegal manner in which to do it.

Also, harm/damage is a big consideration in sentencing. He broke the law, yes.
But usually a violation of the law in this regard results in substantial
losses. Because it did not here, the only damage is his violation of his
contractual obligation to provide money back to those who said they wanted to
cash out. By holding the money, he deprived them of their rightful property as
per the contract they signed when they invested with him. And considering they
would have a real hard time beating his returns, proving any sort of tort
injury is essentially impossible. This leaves only the statutory violation,
meaning he amazingly didn't necessarily harm anyone or their property but
rather just broke the law. Given the lack of injury to the victims of his
crime, I think he's likely to see a very light sentence.

~~~
downandout
Let me start by saying that what you are saying probably _should_ be the way
it plays out in this case. Everyone seems to have made money. I was just
stating how it _actually_ plays out in the vast majority of federal cases, and
will likely play out here.

In this case, because of the amount involved, the guidelines will call for a
substantial prison sentence (well over 5 years). There is actually a loss
table (again, we're talking about the "intended loss") that determines a
certain number of points for the loss [1] (plus 7 points for the "base offense
level"), and that number of points is then used with the sentencing table [2]
to determine the sentence. The judge is of course free to depart up or down
from the guideline sentence, but the sentencing range determined by those
tables will be the starting point. The odds that he will receive no prison
time at all after having gone to trial and lost are effectively zero. The
judge will likely cut him _some_ kind of break because nobody actually lost
anything - his lawyers will argue that he showed remorse after the fact by
eventually making his victims whole - but that will have a minor effect at
best. My best guess, having watched many of these things play out, is 4-6
years.

[1] [https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2016-guidelines-
manual/2016-...](https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2016-guidelines-
manual/2016-chapter-2-c#2b11)

[2] [https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2016-guidelines-
manual/2016-...](https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2016-guidelines-
manual/2016-chapter-5)

~~~
turc1656
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 than that case. I'm only interested because
it's Shkreli.

~~~
fastball
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 can tell, Shkreli turned a _technically legal_ "I fucked up and
lost your money scenario" into a _technically illegal_ I fucked up, lost your
money, but got it back to you scenario.

If I was part of Shkreli's hedge fund, I would much prefer to be involved in
the latter scenario than the former.

Sure, I could sue Shkreli to recoup some of my hedge fund losses, but this way
they didn't need to.

~~~
Alex3917
> 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.

~~~
um_ya
You're grasping for ways to punish this guy because you don't like him. The
fact is, he made a mistake and wanted to pay back the people he made a mistake
with.

~~~
RodericDay
I'd say it's exactly the opposite. The guy blatantly broke the law, but you
seem to he very attached to him because you see him as some kind of noble do-
gooder.

------
Clubber
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 interview:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PCb9mnrU1g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PCb9mnrU1g)

~~~
swang
> 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...

~~~
kbenson
Interestingly, his fraud seems to fall into two categories. Lying about his
fund's bonafides and status on one side, and working hard to make sure those
same investors got what they were expecting by founding a company, making it
successful and paying them out from the profits.

It sounds like he definitely lied to investors, but he apparently didn't
intend to steal their money, and took pains to make sure he did not cost them
money in the end. Apparently most investors in the fund that lost all it's
money ended up close to tripling their investment after he worked to replace
the lost money in the end.

That leaves me thinking that "up to 20 years" is a bit harsh given the facts.
Hopefully the judge will take that into consideration and give him a more
lenient sentence.

~~~
Sangermaine
Are you kidding? He's human garbage, let him rot. It's astounding how people
are being taken in by this con man.

~~~
mindfulplay
Regardless of big an asshole he is based on seeing the Vice interview and
thinking about the big fraud pharma industry makes me think he is actually way
better than the conniving people who run big pharma.

This guy speaks out and maybe he is an asshole and suddenly everyone hates
him. The rest keep their profits to themselves and we don't seem to care or
mind.

~~~
beginpanic
Everyone has choices to make. Martin could have easily _not_ been an asshole
to cancer patients or investors at his fund. You want to let him off the hook
just because he said "yup I'm a dick" while he was making the choice to be a
dick and profited massively from being a dick?

Acknowledging the fact that what you're doing is wrong does not suddenly make
that thing right. It's still wrong. And you're still an asshole for doing it.

------
sp527
The government and media couldn't have asked for a better outcome. The actual
criminals on Wall Street and in Big Pharma, who had the foresight to line the
right pockets, go ignored and the outsider who drew the ire of the public -
for a decidedly amoral business decision with poor optics - is very publicly
castigated. It's a win all around for a monumentally corrupt establishment,
which has once again deferred meaningful scrutiny.

Shkreli made the mistake of setting himself up as the perfect loudmouthed,
flamboyant patsy.

~~~
tompetry
Didn't think of it this way. So true.

------
kabdib
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 confirmed what I'd suspected for years.

I have to assume that the EpiPen delivery mechanism, which is really what
we're paying for, is well debugged and optimized and essentially just a matter
of ordering parts and assembling them; it would be mind boggling to have a
COGs of more than a few dollars, or any significant conversion costs. The cost
of the actual medication that the pens contain is apparently about sixty cents
on top of that. Mylan is _printing_ money.

Icing on the cake: The pens expire after a year. But you typically can't get
pens that last that long, the ones I got already have a few months on them and
will have to be replaced before the next school year ends or my son won't be
able to attend class (the school is not allowed to administer "expired"
medication).

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

~~~
dingo_bat
So when are you planning to manufacture an equivalent device at lower price?
Just sell it for $99, you'll crush Mylan and still earn 10x margins.

~~~
par
They've probably got a ton of lawyers who would come after you based on their
patents. Doubt op has mega cash to fight that.

~~~
dingo_bat
I'm sure he can modify the design slightly. Maybe even improve it a bit. That
would easily get around the patents.

~~~
neotek
You don't have to get around the patents, you have to get around the lawsuits.
Being right doesn't stop you from going broke defending yourself.

------
sqeaky
Putting people like Shkreli into prison for a long time is vital to the long
term stability of society. I wish money didn't buy options to avoid prison and
I wish that people with his behaviors didn't so often accrue large amounts of
money.

~~~
hood_syntax
That would be great if he wasn't one of many, and if nothing of significance
will come from this ruling (it won't). He's just a convenient target that can
be pointed to and said of "Look, aren't we doing our job?" when the truth is
nothing will change in the long run.

~~~
ZenoArrow
> "That would be great if he wasn't one of many"

You could say the same for almost any crime. Why should those who commit
white-collar crime be allowed to continue without repercussions, whilst those
who commit much smaller offences get jail time?

~~~
Clubber
The problem is now Congress can sit back and do nothing for a few years
regarding Pharma, since the masses and media will be satisfied with this.
Nothing changes.

~~~
ZenoArrow
Correct me if I'm wrong... I thought this particular court case had very
little to do with the pharmaceutical industry. Also, that's a bit of a
stretch. It's not like the government has a 'white collar crime prosecutions
quota', and the general public doesn't overlook wrongdoing if similar crimes
have been prosecuted recently.

~~~
Clubber
This case has nothing to do with the pharmaceutical industry. Shkreli is known
to be the "bad boy of Pharma" and is being taken down. His reputation is based
on hiking the price of his drug. This will make the federal government look
like they are doing something without actually doing anything. They aren't
prosecuting him for price gouging his drugs and that common practice will not
stop.

------
setra
Note that this does not have anything to do with his pricing of
pharmaceuticals. From a different article:

"Prosecutors say Shkreli looted his drug company to pay back investors in two
failed hedge funds he ran. The defense says investors got their original
investments back and even made hefty profits."

~~~
loeg
In theory it had nothing to do with it, although it's not clear that the
prosecution would have gone after him without that negative attention. Also,
it had an effect on the juror pool.

~~~
zokier
Was it the nazis or soviets (or both) who made effectively everyone criminal
so that they could then persecute them at will?

~~~
beagle3
It's almost every country these days, see e.g. [https://www.amazon.com/Three-
Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-
Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229) \- which has a slightly clickbaity title, but
worrying content.

But it seems Shkreli's transgressions are not of the "three felonies before
breakfast" variety, but rather things that are indeed often prosecuted
(though, it should be noted, as everyone wronged was made whole, it is likely
that he would not have been prosecuted if he had not been in the media
spotlight as a villain; other remarks here mentioned that the founding of
Fedex had a similar fraud committed, for example).

------
nodesocket
Unfortunately Martin was made a scapegoat and they made an example out of him
because of his arrogance and vocal personality. How did the executives that
caused the financial crisis of 2008 get off completely free but a relatively
tiny hedge fund manager get the book thrown at him? This was a witch hunt, no
doubt about it.

~~~
whipoodle
I agree, but only in the sense that more of them should be in jail.

------
defen
I'd like someone to do a reading of Martin Shkreli as "satirist of
neoliberalism", and suggest that the reason so many people hate him so much is
that he's a scapegoat for our collective feelings of guilt. Can anyone offer a
valid critique of his raising the price of Daraprim, _within the frame of
neoliberalism_ , that doesn't just reduce to "that guy's a real jerk!"?

~~~
CalChris
Before we did that we'd have to agree on what _neoliberalism_ is. One
definition cited by Wikipedia is:

> _Neoliberal theory argues that a free market will allow efficiency, economic
> growth, income distribution, and technological progress to occur. Any state
> intervention to encourage these phenomena will worsen economic performance._

Another is that neoliberalism is the relitigation of the New Deal.

I like the second more operational definition since it doesn't ignore history.

------
circadiam
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.

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

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

------
fmihaila
For those who can access it, this NYT article has more detail:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/04/business/dealbook/martin-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/04/business/dealbook/martin-
shkreli-guilty.html)

(Edit: I posted this comment while the WaPo article had only a few paragraphs;
it's now fully fledged.)

------
zokier
Gotta love the narrative here. Jack up the medicine price and become americas
most hated for a moment by general behavior.. that's fine. Make a fool of
couple of hedge fund investors.. oh boy, now you fucked up

------
dayaz36
Although technically true, the title is a bit misleading. He was acquitted
from 5 of the 8 counts he was convicted of. Of the 8 counts, count 7 carried
the biggest wait. This was in regards to the Retrophin securities fraud
accusation where he was accused of a ponzi scheme amounting to over $10M. This
was the only thing that would of brought him significant jail time but he was
found not guilty. Count 7 carried more wait than all the other counts combined
and was the heart of the case against him. Right now the case has gone from a
felony to basically a parking ticket. All the articles talking about "facing
20 years" are sensationalist nonsense. That is a theoretical maximum. He will
most likely receive NO jail time and will probably just have to pay a small
fee. Of course you will not get any of this context from all the
sensationalist headlines out there like "MARTIN SHKRELI FOUND GUILTY! FACING
20 YEARS PRISON SENTENCE!"...

------
calafrax
Great. They convicted one low level autistic freak with no connections over a
couple million dollars. Brave day for justice.

What about the daughter of a senator who is the CEO of the company that
quadrupled the price of epipens? Yeah, right, mission accomplished, nothing to
see there.

------
nsnick
His mistake was taking money from rich people. If he had stuck to stealing
from and killing poor people, nothing would have happened to him.

------
azm1
Why would this guy should go to prison when no one(except one guy in us) went
to prison after the massive financial crisis in 2008?I know its
naive/rhetorical question but thinking about it, its crazy to me.He did no
financial harm too.

------
aphextron
>“Rarely has a white-collar criminal defendant evoked hatred and scorn from
public in the way Shkreli has. Shkreli’s willingness to lie, step on people,
flaunt his wealth and look down on others made him a villain that many wanted
to see go down in flames,” said James Goodnow, an attorney with Fennemore
Craig, a corporate defense firm.

This attitude is just disgusting, and indicative of precisely what has gone
wrong with our society. "White collar" criminals who steal millions are
deserving of leniency and mercy. But the "thug" who stole $20 from a 7/11
deserves 20 years.

~~~
sintaxi
Well if the thug pointed a loaded gun the the clerks face for 20 bills I would
say yes.

------
grizzles
I find it hard to believe that he got a fair trial this time around. He was
already tried and found guilty in a trial by media a few years back. This
investigation & prosecution are a direct result of his legal actions that
didn't play well politically. BOTH presidential candidates condemned him. To
me it's sad. The sacrificial lambing of Shkreli instead of lawmakers
addressing the underlying problem of costly pharma is probably the most
Venezuela thing I've ever seen happen in the US. They made the system, he's
just trying to prosper ffs.

------
ptr_void
He is live-streaming right now:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvArpDQHf-Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvArpDQHf-Y)

~~~
fmihaila
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.)

~~~
velobro
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.

~~~
ptr_void
Ding ding ding ding [0]

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

------
ajarmst
It's almost like you shouldn't trust people with narcissistic personality
disorder with your money or nuclear launch codes.

------
forkLding
For those who haven't read the article, Martin is being charged on cheating
his investors, he himself admits to his "broomsticks", not the immoral
arguments he was previously known for.

Also that aside, he was quite a easy target.

------
slap_shot
FWIW, Shkreli has said several times on his YouTube channel that he predicted
he was serve 2 years and be done. From what I've heard, he'll be sentenced 3-5
and and serve 80% with good behavior. He had an excellent defense and this was
probably known from the beginning.

Interestingly, I don't think he pretends that what he did was right - it just
understood it was a means to an end: two years in white collar "prison" for
30-70MM when he had less than $1,000 in the bank and owed creditors north of
1MM.

------
michrassena
I've found him to be an interesting character, a potent symbol of the greed,
arrogance, and indifference of the pharmaceutical industry. A PR firm couldn't
have invented a better villain, young, brash, flouting decorum by his openly
fleecing the public. He was the perfect scapegoat.

I think we all know nothing has changed, and his conviction today has no
relationship to his role as CEO, but I wonder if public opinion of the
industry will improve, as if the bad apple is rooted out.

------
blizkreeg
I have no sympathy for him as he appears to have lied to his investors and
moved money around, which seems to be outside the law.

Raising the price of a drug though, as long as he can get away with it, is no
crime, no matter how big the increase.

This makes me question though, did he raise the price of Daraprim so he could
return money to the investors of his hedge fund?? If so, his entire defense
(from his videos) of raising the price to meet his fiduciary duties to
Turing's investors falls flat.

------
thrillgore
Okay real talk -- who's gonna get that Wu-Tang album he has?

------
MistahKoala
I get the impression he isn't so much malevolent in his actions, rather he
behaves as a libertine and someone who takes the view that the end justify the
means.

~~~
emodendroket
OK, so he's just indifferent to the harm caused by his actions, rather than a
cackling sadist. So what?

------
boskonyc
[https://www.cnbc.com/video/2017/08/04/martin-shkreli-on-
verd...](https://www.cnbc.com/video/2017/08/04/martin-shkreli-on-verdict-this-
was-a-witch-hunt-of-epic-proportions.html)

------
roel_v
So, are the gonna sell off his stuff and more in particular, is the Wu Tang
album coming up for sale?

------
eurticket
hand over the wutang

~~~
exception_e
My thoughts exactly. This is very important.

------
donatj
I'm sure it's been said but was it ever possible for him to get a fair trial?

------
jonplackett
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.

------
balls187
> Prosecutors argued that Shkreli lied to investors in two hedge funds ...
> according to prosecutors.

If you were to scrutinize what founders of darling startups said to investors,
how many "inconsistencies" would you find?

------
rajacombinator
Jail time for Goldman/JPM execs: 0 and counting ...

------
bobsgame
"Martin Shkreli is found innocent of 5/8 security fraud charges."

------
poisonarena
I entered a livestream question session with this clown and asked him his
opinion on CRSPR tech and he replied "It has not future because 'it doesn't
work'".. Thats when I knew he was full of crap

------
Alaura
Sound's like a good thing tho, i mean we have seen his history and his past, a
lot of things kinda conspired to see this coming in the end.

------
jedberg
I understand that what he did was morally abhorrent, but I don't understand
why it was illegal? Maybe a lawyer can give a quick summaray?

~~~
watty
Did you read the article?

> 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.

~~~
setra
The article seems to have been extended from a couple paragraphs to a long
piece. The url stayed identical.

------
llcoolv
This really reminds me of "The stranger" by Albert Camus.

~~~
Unbeliever69
Did the sun get in someone's eyes?

------
samgranieri
lol

------
0xbear
I think it's fair to say that Shkreli would be left to his own devices had he
not shown the audacity to charge what the market will bear. Meanwhile another
person who similarly jacked up the price of a lifesaving drug beyond what many
could afford, Heather Bresch, received no negative legal attention whatsoever.
Ever wonder why? Because her dad is Joe Manchin. The swamp needs draining so
bad.

~~~
paulgb
Bumping the price of a drug is not illegal. Shkreli was found guilty for fraud
unrelated to the drug price hike.

~~~
0xbear
Did I say otherwise? Is there any doubt in your mind as to why they went after
him though? How many other hedge fund managers do you know of that have ever
seen the inside of a jail cell?

~~~
paulgb
You didn't say otherwise, but it seems to explain why he was prosecuted while
Bresch was not.

~~~
0xbear
Not why he was prosecuted. Why he was even considered for prosecution in the
first place. Some of the investors "harmed" by Shkreli admitted on the stand
that their investments with him were the best they've ever made. Dude is also
obviously smart and talented, and while he might have bent the rules here and
there, as far as I can tell no harm has come to anyone in the end. So what
this amounts to is little more than a witch hunt. The "aggrieved" party has
made a lot of money.

But my comment was more about a peculiar difference in the treatment of two
people in similar circumstances based seemingly on whether their relatives are
high ranking government officials. Surely this should have seen some more
scrutiny from the "free" press, no?

------
norikki
Can we please have a conversation on the abuse of Federal plea bargains and
insanely high sentencing guidelines? Thousands of Americans every year plead
guilty in federal court to crimes they did not commit because they face
insanely high prison terms if convicted. Often Federal sentences are several
times longer than ones in state courts for the exact same crimes.

------
stevenh
I wish people would stop using the word "modulo" like this.

~~~
dang
We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14933036](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14933036)
and marked it off-topic.

------
accountyaccount
Wait wait wait, he committed fraud... but everyone he defrauded actually ended
up getting a 3X return on their investment because he just took money from
another one of his ventures?

I mean, illegal sure, but seems like he still held up his end of the bargain.

~~~
abvdasker
The thing about the law is that it largely exists as a deterrent for bad
behavior, particularly behavior that causes systemic issues when it becomes
widespread. Just because in this instance the parties being misled didn't lose
their investments doesn't mean that the next time someone like Shkreli
attempts this kind of scheme it won't end in disaster for the people he
defrauds.

It's kind-of like a speed limit. Sure, maybe you didn't get in an accident
doing 100 in a 50 but you sure as hell deserve a ticket because if everyone
did it the roads would become totally unsafe.

~~~
accountyaccount
Sure, but if you get a ticket for doing 100 in a 50 you might be out a few
hundred bucks. If you hit someone while doing 100 in a 50 you'll be in jail.
Outcomes still matter.

~~~
totalZero
We won't know if the outcome affected the punishment until he's sentenced, but
it's likely to be the case here too.

------
ringaroundthetx
In the federal venue, can he appeal the securities counts in isolation of the
things he was found not guilty of?

Conspiracy charges are always weak, if you can afford a constitutional law to
argue on expression grounds.

Has he expressed interest in appealing?

------
discombobulate
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 top, IMO. But it is what it is.

The lying is another kettle of fish. You can't go around bullshitting ppl. &,
as he found out, you can't go around bullshitting investors.

I think he loves money too much. The thought of being poor may have pushed him
to do something stupid (ultimately his call!).

I hope he doesn't have too hard a time in jail. Losing his fortune (I believe
he loses his shares from Retrophin. ~$65mm. That's already a punishment.

Edit: I don't know why I'm being downvoted. I'm being honest. Fuck you people,
frankly.

~~~
burkaman
Trolling is lying. Either you believe terrible things, or you lie about
believing them to make people angry. Normal lying is usually intended for
personal gain, trolling is just lies intended to hurt other people.

~~~
MSM
>Trolling is lying

Not at all, I think one of the most famous "troll" things he did was buy the
master Wu-Tang album and threaten to destroy it so no one could ever hear the
album.

There's no lying or anything meant to "hurt" anyone there, but you can imagine
that it rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.

~~~
burkaman
Threatening to destroy it so nobody else can hear it is explicitly intended to
hurt people who want to hear the album. If you don't mean to hurt anyone, by
definition it isn't trolling.

Maybe I'm stretching the meaning of lying, but I think it's dishonest to
represent yourself as a patron of the arts, as the album was produced as a
piece of art, when you're really bidding on it with the sole purpose of
depriving others. If that's not the reason he bought it, then he wasn't
trolling.

~~~
hxegon
except, no one was actually hurt. He didn't destroy the album (as far as I
know). You could make an argument that it's a dick move, and I might agree,
but it's his property to do with as he wishes.

------
throwawaymanbot
No one has been charged with wrecking the worlds economy in 2008. Sometimes I
have to wonder, is it down to who you know or who you can influence when it
comes to charges. Shkreli got his comeuppance, but why a blind eye to other
larger fish?

------
Sangermaine
"It's not always about lying! Sometimes it's about being cruel to strangers
just to enjoy their suffering!"

~~~
brandonhsiao
How is that "being cruel to strangers just to enjoy their suffering"?

Also, you've commented in this thread about six times now with snarky remarks,
unsubstantiated vitriol, and essentially "Martin Shkreli is a monster."
Whether or not there's good reason to dislike him, I think you've successfully
made your point.

~~~
rhcom2
>I think one of the most famous "troll" things he did was buy the master Wu-
Tang album and threaten to destroy it so no one could ever hear the album.

How is that not exactly "being cruel to strangers just to enjoy their
suffering"?

~~~
sillysaurus3
Because it's a joke. Punish someone for their actions, not their words.

~~~
vonkow
Ah, the #1 go to defence for terrible people when they get called out for
their actions, "it's just a joke, I was just kidding, don't be so sensitive."

~~~
sillysaurus3
You _are_ way too sensitive though. The virtue signaling is through the roof.
All you're doing here is "trying to make sure a terrible person gets their
comeuppance." Like really? You've never pulled a prank in your life?

I notice you and a lot of people like you have around 100-500 karma. I wonder
if it's just newbies trying to find some way of differentiating themselves.
Virtue signaling is in fashion, so it makes sense.

~~~
rhcom2
> virtue signaling

I'm so tired of this buzzword. Why not take people at face value that they are
actually expressing their own moral opinion on an issue and not assume they're
doing it for "social standing"... on an anonymous internet forum.

If you're looking for other behaviour that "makes the community worse" I think
you should consider your own. Starting discussions with the assumption one
side's opinions aren't valid opinions and using user's comment karma as a
barometer of their sincerity will lead only to flame wars.

~~~
sillysaurus3
It didn't lead to a flamewar.

The issue is that expressing your own moral opinion is fashionable. It's
considered acceptable to hold someone else's head under water just to raise
your own. And that's toxic.

Note that anyone who calls out virtue signaling soon ends up in the
crosshairs. I don't mind though.

Also, they were quite serious. And that's the problem. The fact that they're
serious in calling out someone as a "terrible person" (when they're not) is
what makes it dangerous.

~~~
rhcom2
It's an internet forum. We're all expressing our own moral and general
opinions. It's toxic to assume these opinions are not honestly held and write
them off simply with another buzz word. The other poster didn't hold Shkreli's
head under the water, his comments will not affect Martin at all. Plenty of
people in this thread think he is a terrible person, you don't - that's fine,
but it is still just an opinion. I don't see how that (or almost any) opinion
is "dangerous" just because you disagree.

I don't know why you feel you're "in the crosshairs". You had no problem
criticising the other poster, you should be able to take some criticism of
your own.

~~~
sillysaurus3
_It 's toxic to assume these opinions are not honestly held and write them off
simply with another buzz word._

You keep saying this, but nobody did that. Maybe that's where your anger is
coming from. I clarified in my last comment that their opinions _are_ honestly
held, so at this point it seems like you're trying to misunderstand me.

I think you really dislike the term "virtue signaling." That's fine, but it
doesn't change that that's what is happening here.

The fact that all of this stemmed from the idea that he is a terrible person
for threatening to destroy an album as a joke is what makes this situation
ludicrous. When the witch hunting mindset is so engrained in our culture, it
becomes dangerous to those it targets.

~~~
rhcom2
I'm not angry at all, I'm just trying to tell you that if you're going to
comment on what makes this community worse you need to consider your own
behaviour.

> Since 2015, the term has become more commonly used as a pejorative
> characterization by commentators to criticize what they regard as the
> platitudinous, empty, or superficial support of certain political views"
> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling)

You can see why I would misunderstand you because this is the definition of
the word as I (and obviously others) understand it. So basically saying
someone's opinions are "platitudinous, empty, or superficial" is both shitty
way to try to have a conversation and a way to write people's opinions off.
The wikipedia also pretty nicely sums up how it has become a misused buzzword
without any actual meaning, unless you're a signalling theorist.

