
DOJ: We Want Martin Shkreli’s Enigma Machine, Wu-Tang Album, and $7.3M - wglb
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/feds-seek-forfeiture-of-shkrelis-stuff-wu-tang-album-a-picasso-and-more/
======
vilhelm_s
This seems really insane to me. He was convicted of financial fraud. Then
afterwards he made a post on twitter, and now prosecutors can have him jailed
for it and even forfeit millions of dollars in assets?

Even if you think the tweet about Hillary Clinton's hair was illegal
harassment or instigation or whatever, surely the state should be required to
prove that! Apparently if you have been convicted of some (completely
unrelated) crime, you lose all due process rights and in the future the state
can punish you arbitrarily much with no trial at all.

~~~
ryacko
I think the state did prove it.

For certain cases, you don't have a right to trial by jury, such as bail
revocation. And often it is decided on a preponderance of the evidence
standard.

I don't know the specifics of bail revocation case law, but there are worse
known cases, like contempt of court. Martin Armstrong was held for years, the
All Writs act is being use as an anti-encryption measure, etc.

------
1000units
As someone who has been following this case very closely since the beginning
and is familiar with everyone involved:

The way this man has been treated is a disgrace to our judicial system and
society.

~~~
aerovistae
Is it? Seems fair to me that if you antagonize everyone under the sun, it
comes back to bite you.

I would hate to live in a system that worked by the letter and just said
"Well, can't touch him, he didn't TECHNICALLY break any laws...."

Like what if you had a stalker who wasn't TECHNICALLY violating any of the
terms of his restraining order but was doing everything in their power to make
your miserable anyway? Is it a disgrace for the law to find a way to stick it
to them?

~~~
bmelton
> Is it a disgrace for the law to find a way to stick it to them?

If you don't uphold the civil rights of the loathsome, then those protections
won't be there to protect the righteous.

It's worth remembering that while Shkrelli is super unlikeable, at various
points in history, so were Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, etc.

~~~
Larrikin
All of those people were jailed for their actions. Their actions were
considered noble by a large number of people so there were multiple lawful and
unlawful protests that brought pressure on the government to change the law.

~~~
stale2002
Yes, and it was BAD that those people were jailed.

They were jailed because the system was broken. And it would be better if the
system was NOT broken.

~~~
nickysielicki
> Yes, and it was BAD that those people were jailed.

In absolute terms, it was bad that those people were jailed, but with respect
to the system, it was _good_ that those people were jailed because it served
to highlight the clear disconnect between the laws and what was right and
wrong to society. It's unrealistic to expect institutions to make changes
without going through the process. If Rosa Parks never went to jail there
would have never been the protests which brought about change.

If you think the actions by Shkreli should have strong punishment, it's a
_bad_ thing if Shkreli gets the book thrown at him artificially. You're not
setting precedent and you're not fixing the system. Someone in the future will
do something similar and, depending on the court, they'll get off with a slap
on the wrist. You should root for things to be done by the book so that
everyone can realize, "hey, this book sucks!" and it gets changed through
legislation.

------
exabrial
I won't comment on his demeanor, I think we all feel the same way about his
mannerisms.

I do hope he gets some sort of mistrial eventually. What happened is not
justice, it's mob vengeance with biased judges and prosecutors trying to make
a name for themselves. This reminds me so much of the Aaron Swartz "trial".

------
tehwebguy
Missing from this article is this quote from his attorney:

> "We will vigorously oppose the government motion," Shkreli’s lawyer,
> Benjamin Brafman, said in an email. "Our position is clear. None of the
> investors lost any money and Martin did not personally benefit from any of
> the counts of conviction. Accordingly, forfeiture of any assets is not an
> appropriate remedy."

Anyone here know if this position is legitimate?

~~~
Miner49er
It's true, his case is interesting in that there really was no victims. It was
a victemless crime. Still a crime however.

~~~
chiliap2
How can something be a crime if there are no victims?

~~~
kamaal
Its something like this. Say a person burnt his house, the house is razed to
ashes. There is nobody killed, nobody injured or let's say nobody was even
present at home.

The house was insured, but the owner doesn't claim insurance either.

Despite all this. No insurance scam and no harm to anybody. But still the guy
setting fire to his own home will considered a arsonist.

~~~
dmd
Not true. Arson requires malicious intent / lack of consent.

------
voidr
Recommend watching this video and others that are on his channel before
believing what the media says about him:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l__qN9Qt3Hc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l__qN9Qt3Hc)

I only became familiar with Martin Shkreli's story a only few days ago, yet it
has become my main example that I'll point out when talking about:

\- corrupt media and fake news

\- corrupt populist people in power

\- political witch hunts

\- public that is trivial to mislead

You can easily verify the claims made by the media and the claims made by him
and see exactly who is right and who is wrong, there is no moral grey area.

~~~
pas
Could you be a bit more specific? A few examples would be helpful.

------
paulcole
Apparently, he also claims to have Wayne's album Tha Carter V.

Couldn't he do us a solid and just release it online before the government
takes it?

~~~
sremani
I think currently he is in Jail, but I followed him a bit on YouTube where he
said, that he is contractually obligated not to release it for 88 years (for
Wu Tang Clan album).

One of the reason Wu Tang et al. released these limited edition albums was
they hoped they would be bought by art museums or so, in this case ended up
with private collector.

~~~
wlesieutre
But if someone seizes it from him through legal means they wouldn't be bound
by that agreement, would they?

~~~
jlgaddis
Let's say the government gets it, auctions it, you (legally) purchase it (at
that auction), and are now the owner.

While you wouldn't be bound by any agreements that Shkreli had w/ Wu-Tang
Clan, you would still be in violation of copyright laws if you released it
publicly (and the government _could_ , potentially, put stipulations on its
sale if they wanted).

In addition, if you owned the only existing copy, I think it would be pretty
easy to prove that it was you who released it.

~~~
bogomipz
None of that is true.

Contractually, the purchaser is not allowed to release it "commercially" which
means they could release it for free. It has nothing to do with any copyright
laws.

>"There are strict limitations on the distribution of the 31-track double
album, with a statement from the band reading: "It can be exhibited publicly
and it can be given away for free. But it cannot be commercialised as a
conventional album release until 2103"[1]

[1] [http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-
entertainment/music/news/m...](http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-
entertainment/music/news/martin-shkreli-wu-tang-clan-album-sale-ebay-once-
upon-a-time-in-shaolin-bids-a7933636.html)

~~~
PhasmaFelis
> _Contractually, the purchaser is not allowed to release it "commercially"
> which means they could release it for free. It has nothing to do with any
> copyright laws._

Someone who buys it from a government auction is not bound by any contract
signed by the original purchaser. They are still bound by copyright law,
although the copyright holder (presumably Wu-Tang Clan) could (and likely
would) allow them to exhibit it or give it away.

------
solotronics
Free Martin! It's horrible that people think it's ok to put someone in jail
just for being offensive. Freedom of speech?

------
morpheuskafka
I though he sold the album on ebay?

------
mychael
Yesterday's Kate Steinle article got flagged, but this article on Martin
Shkreli's Wu Tang record did not. Wow.

------
wpdev_63
Whatever he is going to be convicted of, they're going to throw the book at
him. He's a terrible person and an opportunist.

The problem is he is not the only one like this. In an interview with Vice he
goes over the fact that what he did is common practice[0]. Until there is some
way to stop this price gauging there will be more people like him.

[0] -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PCb9mnrU1g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PCb9mnrU1g)

~~~
wpdev_63
If you are going to downvote me, atleast tell me why. EDIT: Just realized I
misspelled price gauging - it should be price 'gouging'

