
Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison - denzil_correa
https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/9/17097116/martin-shkreli-fraud-sentencing-prison
======
bhouston
He was so obnoxious that I guess it is easy to be happy about that, but he was
so small time in the grand scheme of things.

But nearly no bankers responsible for the 2008 financial crisis ever went to
jail:

[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-
wal...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-wall-streets-
bankers-stayed-out-of-jail/399368/)

~~~
birken
Like it or hate it, this is what the SEC does. You think Martha Stewart
deserved jail time for making 50k in an insider trading scheme she didn't
really care about?

The SEC finds very public cases and then brings the hammer down in order to
act a deterrent. Martin Shkreli broke the law, something he didn't have to do.
It isn't like it was mob justice and some hugely biased jury convicted him of
all the crimes he was committed of without thought. The jury by all accounts
fairly deliberated his actions and convicted him of crimes that he did, while
letting him off for crimes he didn't do.

Then all Shkreli had to do was show some remorese and kiss the ring a little
bit, but he continued to be a troll and mock the justice system. He downplayed
his crimes literally minutes after being convicted of them, which showed a
lack of remorse (and maybe honestly so, but the justice system doesn't like
that). He continued to be a troll, including the whole Hillary Clinton
incident, many of these statements used against him in sentencing.

This isn't a case of the tall blades of grass getting cut first. It's a case
where we have a subjective justice system that doesn't want to be mocked while
it is doing it's job. Shkreli went out of his way to mock it, he went out of
his way to mock the SEC, all the while he actually did commit a crime. Yes, it
is a witch hunt in that the SEC will throw the book at some people while
letting other people who committed worse crimes off the hook (Phil Mickelson
vs Martha Stewart), but that how any limited investigative body works. If you
don't want to be a target of a witch hunt, don't break the law. And if you do,
kiss the ring. I'm not convinced it is a huge indictment of our society that
people who break the law all the while trolling everybody get unfairly harsh
punishments, though I admit it is unfair in the sense that life as a whole is
unfair.

~~~
s73v3r_
The SEC, DOJ, et al also have limited amounts of resources. They just can't go
after everyone.

~~~
presidentender
The fact that they can't go after everyone doesn't mean that they should
punish Shkreli _extra hard_ for what amounts to being a jerk.

~~~
candiodari
One would assume however, that given the choice between

1) guy who lied to investors, still made them money (ie. Shkreli)

2) guy who lied to investors, lost 90% of their money (for example,
ironically, Clinton's son in law [2], who has lost more money than the GDP of
about 70 countries, and yet [3] happened)

They would have a strong preference for 2). But the SEC is a HUGE example of
selective justice. Harsh "correct" treatment for whomever offends the elite,
just for insulting and rejecting them (Shkreli IS an idiot, VERY publicly
rejecting and insulting one of the elites WHILE she was running an election
for president AND giving her an excuse ("threatening her") to send the law
after him), or just by being poor. But nothing ever gets done about members of
the elite, even if they're very low level.

And I get it, what Mr. Mezvinsky did was probably in a panic, and it was
political decisions of someone else that did him in, nothing he could have
done (as I'm sure is true for 90%+ of criminals of course, it never seems to
count as an excuse). And it did do serious damage to his career. But he should
be in prison, and owe hundreds of millions of dollars to people.

The issue I have with that is, if you or I, or probably anyone who may read
this did what he did, we'd be locked in a maximum security prison for 40+
years, as well as being destitute.

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Mezvinsky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Mezvinsky)

[3] [https://www.recode.net/2017/5/18/15660060/social-capital-
hir...](https://www.recode.net/2017/5/18/15660060/social-capital-hires-marc-
mezvinsky-investment)

~~~
detaro
[2] and the links going from it don't suggest anything about "lying to
investors", merely making bad bets in Greece shortly before the crisis, in a
fund that was advertised as making bets in Greece. Got a source about that, or
is the argument just that everyone loosing a lot of money has to be
fraudulent?

------
dayaz36
To give some background on how his sentencing increased so dramatically,
initially he was convicted but since no one lost any money his sentencing
guidelines were 0-12 months(most likely no jail time since it was his first
offence). As a general rule of thumb in federal fraud cases sentencing is
primarily determined by the what's called the "loss amount" of the crime in
question. But a couple weeks ago the judge decided to come up with a
HYPOTHETICAL loss and base the sentencing on that! And that hypothetical loss
was set at $10.4M! Meaning he just went from no jail time 7 years overnight.
This seems beyond absurd and as far as I know has no precedence.

~~~
dragonwriter
> To give some background on how his sentencing increased so dramatically

It didn't increase. His sentence was never anything else.

> initially he was convicted but since no one lost any money his sentencing
> guidelines were 0-12 months(most likely no jail time since it was his first
> offence).

False again. When the sentencing phase began, his lawyers argued there were no
legal losses caused by his fraud, and prosecutors argued that losses were in
the $9-20 million range. Both sides presented evidence and legal argument to
support their position.

> As a general rule of thumb in federal fraud cases sentencing is primarily
> determined by the what's called the "loss amount" of the crime in question.

This much is correct.

> But a couple weeks ago the judge decided to come up with a HYPOTHETICAL loss
> and base the sentencing on that!

False; it was not a hypothetical loss amount. The court applied existing legal
precedent that “loss in fraud cases includes the amount of property taken,
even if all or part has been returned.” [0]

[0] [http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/02/Shk...](http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/02/Shkreli-order.pdf)

~~~
cypherpunks01
Interesting! From your [0] link:

"The Second Circuit repeatedly has held that “loss in fraud cases includes the
amount of property taken, even if all or part has been returned.”"

"(Rejecting the defendant’s argument that the value of his fraud victim’s
equity in his partnership should be subtracted from the loss amount, and
holding that “[t]he ‘loss’ was the money that the investors were fraudulently
induced to invest ...irrespective of the value of the [property].”)"

"The Sentencing Guidelines provide for specific “Credits Against Loss,”
whereby loss calculations may be reduced by, inter alia, “[t]he money returned
. . . by the defendant to the victim before the offense was detected.” The
Guidelines define “time of detection” for purposes of credit against loss as
“the earlier of (I) the time the offense was discovered by a victim or
government agency; or (II) the time the defendant knew or reasonably should
have known that the offense was detected or about to be detected by a victim
or government agency."

------
otalp
It does say something depressing about our laws that he got sent to prison for
the thing where he lied to rich people while still making them money rather
than the thing where he extorted sick poor people...which is still fully legal
even if the majority of society thinks it shouldn't.

~~~
rayiner
Not it doesn’t. Our legal framework doesn’t oblige you to save someone’s life
just because you have the means to do so. If it did, we’d all be in big
trouble—for the cost of a fully loaded MacBook Pro, you could save someone
from malaria in Africa.

The fact that people think a particular unpopular thing shouldn’t be legal
doesn’t change that. There are a lot of things people believe should be
illegal that aren’t illegal, because that would conflict with higher
principles of law. People are easily swayed by emotion; the law at least
attempts to be rational.

~~~
wpietri
You mistakenly compare a failure to act ("save someone from malaria") with a
clear purposeful action ("extorted sick poor people").

And there's no particular "higher purpose" of the law here that prevents us
from making Shkreli's behavior illegal. Price gouging is illegal under other
circumstances [1]; as far as I can tell his actions were legal just because
nobody thought someone would be this awful.

If you'd like to defend this sociopath, please at least try to make your
argument relate to the actual situation.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_gouging](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_gouging)

~~~
harryh

        Malaria person: please wpietri, help me.
        wpietri: No
    
        Sick person: please shkreli, help me.
        shkreli: Sure, for $500
    

At least in the second scenario the person is being offered an option under
which they get help. It sounds a lot better than the first scenario for the
afflicted.

~~~
dwild
2012 - Malaria person: please dwild, help me.

dwild: no

2017 - Malaria person: please dwild, help me.

dwild: no

2012 - Sick person: please Daraprim, help me.

Daraprim: Sure, for US$13.5

2017 - Sick person: please Daraprim, help me.

shkreli: Sure, for US$750

You see the difference? With me, they stayed at the same level of help, none.
In the second, he purposefully profited from the help they were getting from
Daraprim. He removed something they had beforehand.

~~~
ecommerceguy
Gosh I wonder if a replacement was made for Daraprim..

>Imprimis Pharmaceuticals, a specialty pharmaceutical company that creates
compounded drugs, released a $1 a pill alternative to , a toxoplasmosis
treatment whose price skyrocketed by over 5,000% in recent months.

>While the new pill is a boon for patients in need of treatment for the food-
borne illness, especially those with weak immune systems like HIV/AIDS and
cancer patients, the alternative drug is not an exact copy of Daraprim.

>Imprimis’ pill is a combination of pyrimethamine—the sole ingredient in
Daraprim—and leucovorin, a medicine that helps reverse the negative effects on
bone marrow caused by the way pyrimethamine works in the body. The two
medicines work synergistically and are recommended to be taken in tandem by
the Centers for Disease Control. Leucovorin is often prescribed alongside
Daraprim.

Not only was the replacement cheaper, it was daraprim coupled with another
drug to fight side effects of daraprim.

The judge in this case has a history of using her bench as a bully pulpit. She
claims that outside factors had 0 influence on her decision. I find that
pretty hard to believe especially with her history.

As for the cost increase I believe they were funding a non side effect version
of the drug, which would probably be nice for alot of people. Bone marrow is
something thats hard to live without.

This will be overturned. So what if he's a trolling douchebag.

~~~
meowface
He wasn't charged for raising the price of daraprim. That wasn't illegal.
Defrauding investors is illegal. I highly doubt the case will be overturned.

~~~
harryh
Would you like to bet on it? I've got $100 that says his sentence will be
reduced by at least 50%.

~~~
meowface
Sure. Know a good betting platform? Maybe his sentence will be reduced
somewhat, but I doubt by half. Also, we'll need to remove time-off for good
behavior (which everyone gets by default unless they get in trouble) as part
of the bet. 7+ years for defrauding investors is not uncommon, regardless of
the other circumstances around the case and the defendant.

~~~
rayiner
Federal good time credits are limited to 15% of the sentence, so he'll serve
at least 6 years if the sentence isn't reduced on appeal.[1]

[1] Actually, slightly more than 6 years because Congress is completely
incompetent: [http://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/FAQ-Federal-
Good-...](http://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/FAQ-Federal-Good-
Time-6.7.pdf).

------
hb3b
Cruel and unusual given the crime. Half the sentence of Jeffrey Skilling who
destroyed thousands of families. No question in my mind that the judge had it
out for him from the get-go.

~~~
se30b
He really screwed himself over while he was on bail. He probably could have
gotten off with what his attorneys wanted (around a year) if he just shut up
until after the sentencing was over. But he kept trolling on livestream and
twitter and acting like it was a given that he would get off easy. Obviously
he was joking around with the Clinton "threat" but he should not have given
prosecutors anything to use against him. I like the guy overall, his
educational streams were pretty good, but trolling very powerful people while
you are facing potential 20 years in prison is insane.

~~~
thewizardofaus
Shkreli taught me lots. If it wasn't for shkreli's advice and guidance my
stock portfolio would be a mere fraction of what it is today.

~~~
jonathanjaeger
Wow, it really is a treasure trove. I'm interested in biotech and could
definitely use this kind of primer. Are you investing in biotech or are you
just speaking in general?

~~~
thewizardofaus
I do minor investing in biotech. The skills I learnt generally helped me to
focus on sectors that applied to my knowledge base more.

------
yodsanklai
I used to watch some of his investment tutorials on youtube as well as other
videos. For someone called the "most hated man in America", he actually seemed
like a nice person. I also enjoyed his trollish sense of humor.

~~~
ergothus
> I also enjoyed his trollish sense of humor.

I think that makes the title that much easier to understand. I'm an old-fuddy-
duddy (for example, I say things like 'fuddy-duddy'), but to me there are two
forms of trolling.

One where you're doing it to get their reaction and entertainment when they
get it. I find this usually fun - the person doing it has fun, any audience
has fun, and the person has that anguish-relief-joy cycle. When you do this to
someone, you aren't gaining joy from the first emption your stoking, you get
joy when it's found out and that emotion changes. The trolling itself is
building anticipation. An example: My wife bought me a PalmPilot (back when
those were a thing) but secretly took it out of the package to charge it, then
gifted the surprisingly-not-much-lighter box to me. After my moment of feeling
like I'd have to wait longer for my new toy (to try and return it) she
revealed it fully-charged, and we had a laugh.

The second way is subtly different. The trolls are still poking at a person's
emotions. They can SAY the target should get it and enjoy it ("relax, it's
just a joke"), but really the goal is to entertain the troll and any audience.
The targets of this trolling don't get a laugh. They get
anxiety/hate/fear/dread/panic/anger or whatever, and the troll gains
satisfaction from that, not from when that ends. Example: Posting
political/moral thoughts that you don't have, but that are deliberately chosen
to invoke outrage within the forum you are posting to, then moving on to the
next once that's gotten enough reaction.

I'm obviously biased, but while I can appreciate the first kind, the second
kind just seems to be increasing the misery in the world for a laugh. Laughs
aren't so hard to get in other ways. Misery is miserable, by definition.

So if someone is described as a "troll" I tend to be leery rather than eager.
When I encounter someone, it's very easy to find EITHER kind of trolling
annoying. Perhaps because your brain is trying to fit people into a
context/schema and trolling disrupts that. Brains don't tend to react well to
that sort of thing. Known friends and family don't cause that reaction.

I don't know anything about Shkreli other than what I've read, but if you say
"most hated man in America" and "trollish sense of humor", my instinct is to
nod knowingly.

~~~
coryfklein
Love this. Glee from seeing somebody else suffer belongs in the 17th century,
not today, and whatever "humor" value it may have does not give cause to
dissociate it from its very nature of cruelty.

------
tpush
The majority of comments here being sad about Shkreli kinda reaffirms my views
about HN, I have to say.

Shkreli always seemed like a personified 4chan teenager "memelord" with money.
Good to see that playing out your delusions of grandeur and arrogance toward
the justice system is met with consequences.

Maybe in prison he will mature a bit.

~~~
verylittlemeat
I think you're going for the low hanging fruit by judging HN that way. The
more interesting thing is that the majority of comments are shocked by the 7
year sentence rather than the minority who think he was "an ok guy."

I keep seeing this naive understanding of the law over and over again in tech
circles. The justice system is made up of several people with a ton of leeway
on how laws are applied. The letter of the law is just a small part of what
"illegal" means. Being clever or cute about only breaking the spirit of the
law will not save you in court, in fact many times trying to only break the
spirit is what will get you convicted on the letter of the law. I hate to say
it but I think Aaron Schwartz fell victim to this fallacy and in recent memory
so did those flight sim guys who put a keylogger in pirated software.

I've spent a lot of time around lawyers and judges and I can tell you they
have absolutely no tolerance for the kind of "well, actually" smart-asses that
the tech community excels at churning out.

edit: I just want to add this exchange from the movie Blow which I think
really sums up how I feel about the whole thing.

>Judge: George Jung, you stand accused of possession of six hundred and sixty
pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute. How do you plead?

>George: Your honor, I'd like to say a few words to the court if I may.

>Judge: Well, you're gonna have to stop slouching and stand up to address this
court, sir.

>George: [stands] Alright. Well, in all honesty, I don't feel that what I've
done is a crime. And I think it's illogical and irresponsible for you to
sentence me to prison. Because, when you think about it, what did I really do?
I crossed an imaginary line with a bunch of plants. I mean, you say I'm an
outlaw, you say I'm a thief, but where's the Christmas dinner for the people
on relief? Huh? You say you're looking for someone who's never weak but always
strong, to gather flowers constantly whether you are right or wrong, someone
to open each and every door, but it ain't me, babe, huh? No, no, no, it ain't
me, babe. It ain't me you're looking for, babe. You follow?

>Judge: Yeah... Gosh, you know, your concepts are really interesting, Mister
Jung.

>George: Thank you.

>Judge: Unfortunately for you, the line you crossed was real and the plants
you brought with you were illegal, so your bail is twenty thousand dollars.

~~~
DoreenMichele
_I can tell you have they have absolutely no tolerance for the kind of "well,
actually" smart-asses that the tech community excels at churning out._

Or perhaps it merely attracts them.

~~~
verylittlemeat
It certainly doesn't help. A web designer wouldn't like being told by a lawyer
what their job entails either.

When you're dealing with professional egos sometimes it pays to tread lightly.
Shkreli learned this the hard way.

------
synaesthesisx
For every Shkreli that gets locked up there are hundreds of others that walk
free. They wanted to make an example of him - it doesn't help that his
character is almost a cartoon-villain of sorts.

------
roymurdock
Really 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

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTNOWSKMS10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTNOWSKMS10)

~~~
danso
I agree he's very smart. But you argue that, besides being a boy genius, he is
a very thoughtful and respectful guy -- yet he's too dumb and ignorant to
recognize the consequences of extreme trolling? Even when he was warned
repeatedly against such trolling, and that it was clear to everyone that such
trolling would be absolutely a detriment to his own welfare?

If we agree that he is very smart, how does being thoughtful and respectful
play into his trolling behavior post-conviction?

~~~
roymurdock
He understands the justice/social system and its absurdity and decides to have
a bit of fun subverting the system and stirring up drama, even if it has
detrimental effects on his ongoing case, because he enjoys giving the middle
finger to authority and the established order/system.

He's respectful to the interviewers, but he seems to absolutely detest
authority (especially authority which seems arbitrary or archaic).

~~~
danso
What absurdity about the justice system did he perceive (that the status quo
doesn't)? And if he knew what he was doing, and properly ascertained its
detrimental effects, then why did he reportedly weep and plead for mercy when
the sentence was handed down?

To put this another way, if Shkreli received what he thought he would get --
which is 0 days in prison (when considering time served up to now) -- then how
is that less a mockery of the justice system than the other cases people
complain about, when smart, clean-cut, cultured white-collar executives don't
get what they purportedly deserve? I bet if Enron's Jeffrey Skilling (who
received an initial sentence of 24+ years) had a YouTube channel, he too would
come off as a relatable intelligent and clever human, which is what you'd
expect of someone who worked his way up to CEO.

~~~
roymurdock
I don't have the answers you're looking for, just sharing my view of his
character/motivations after watching a 30 minute interview with the guy on his
upbringing, rap, and the pharma industry.

I'd wager Enron's CEO would come off as an actor or a sociopath reading press
releases or prepared scripts for money, whereas Shkreli still exhibits genuine
human emotions, quirks (genuinely passionate about rap/hip hop because it got
him through tough times growing up), compassion (gave drugs away for free to
those who couldn't afford, taught a youtube series on chemsitry/pharma for
younger generation of investors), etc. It seems like it's not all about money
for Shkreli, he wants to impact the culture and give back in unselfish ways.

I put myself in his shoes, and I feel bad for the guy having 7 years of his
life taken from him, especially when many other white collar crimes of
seemingly greater magnitude go unpunished

------
Clubber
Here'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, he did nothing illegal.

3\. Prosecutors, needing to do _something_ got him on fraud charges where he
misstated information on an investment but still _tripled their money._

4\. Shkrelli goes to jail, news and citizenry quelled. Companies still free to
continue cornering the market and jacking up prices with impunity.

That's how you get away with this stuff. News made money with the story.
Companies made money with their drug hikes, politicians and prosecutors look
good because they took action, Shkrelli investors made money. Shkrelli lost,
patients lost, taxpayers lost. Rinse, repeat. Systemic corruption.

~~~
jcoffland
Shkreli has repeatedly flaunted his wealth, privilege and false sense of
superiority. Although not illegal, it's offensive. Offending the public,
whether right or wrong, has consequences. Shkreli is getting a taste of mob
justice, or just what he asked for.

~~~
foxhound6
> ...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?

~~~
ggg9990
No, it’s what the justice system is in place to formalize.

~~~
m_mueller
... in the US, apparently.

~~~
ggg9990
Pretty much everywhere, if the justice system doesn’t reflect the population’s
desire for mob justice, the people will administer it extrajudicially. The
places with low bloodthirst traditionally have strong civic fabrics and low
violent crime. If those things change the justice system will adapt or die.

~~~
m_mueller
Isn‘t this a chicken and egg problem? If people don‘t get to know court
proceedings when they happen it doesn‘t give them more outrage and justice
porn and calms down the overall atmosphere. To compare, Swiss people generally
don‘t care about what happens in courts, they care about the next direct
democractic vote (and get riled up about it sometimes), but I consider that at
least more at the root of politics and not targeted at individuals.

------
gfosco
Harsh sentence for a case where all the money was paid back.

~~~
ModernMech
"Your honor, I must protest this sentence! After all, my clients paid back all
the money they stole from the bank!"

~~~
gfosco
Not really a good analogy. They invested with him, he lost it but found
another way to make that money back. There wasn't any theft.

~~~
jartelt
If I give you money to invest in Alphabet stock and you instead invest it in
lottery tickets, that seems like theft to me regardless of whether the lottery
tickets pay off or not.

~~~
jonnycomputer
it surely does sound like people are looking for excuses for the guy. it was
fraud, and he has only himself to blame.

~~~
s73v3r_
I think it's just that so many people don't want to have to think about their
intentions when they do things.

------
pmarreck
Possibly the only man that has caused me to feel bad for a troll. I don't
think he deserved this. And it will pretty much only legitimize him as
"gangsta"

------
rajacombinator
Jail time for JPM, Goldman, Bear Stearns, Lehman execs? Oh I see ...

Shkreli’s real crime was not donating to the appropriate PACs. (Friend of
Schumer, etc...)

------
seltzered_
I realize the actual charges are for different things, but I find myself
comparing Shkreli's actions of hiking up daraprim prices to John Kapoor's
fraud charges to sell opioids ( [https://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2017/10/doj-billionaire-...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2017/10/doj-billionaire-pharma-owner-fueled-the-opioid-epidemic-with-
bribery-scheme/) ). So far one of the doctors involved in the latter case got
four years ( [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-09/ivy-
leagu...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-09/ivy-league-
doctor-gets-4-years-prison-for-insys-opioid-kickbacks) ). More light needs to
be shined on Kapoor's case (and the practices in Big Pharma in general) if
it's impacting more lives.

I don't like Shkreli's obnoxiousness, yet tried listening to his reasoning in
why he raised the daraprim price versus other drugs. His talk last year at
Harvard (
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3bpXHMP4ww](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3bpXHMP4ww)
) dives a bit into the thought process.

------
mabbo
Looking at the photos of this guy, I'm starting to wonder if that sick little
smile he has is actually his stress response. Maybe that's how he looks when
he's sweating bullets and feels guilty, and we all interpret that as him being
an asshole who is glad he got away with the things he's done. I've certainly
known people with weirder ticks.

Or maybe he's literally a horrendous human being who is rightfully hated for
the horrible things he's done.

------
se30b
Can someone explain specifically what lies he told his investors to defraud
them?

~~~
tedunangst
He claimed the fund was worth millions when it was really worth zero.

~~~
spaceflunky
But then he tripled their money...

~~~
TheCoelacanth
If I steal money and use it to buy lottery tickets, it doesn't become less of
a crime if win and am able to pay the money back.

~~~
onecooldev24
You don't know his case, you better not comment.

------
jcoffland
The good news is that the Wu Tang album Shkreli bought is forfeit and can now
presumably be released to the public.

[https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2018/03/05/590980850...](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2018/03/05/590980850/martin-shkreli-now-in-jail-may-have-to-forfeit-that-
wu-tang-album-after-all)

~~~
sigstoat
that's not how intellectual property, property in general, or being forced to
pay fines works, as is pretty clear if you read to the end of that article.

if he still owned the album, and it is seized by the government, it would go
up for auction, at which point whoever pays for it gets it. and they'd be
under no more obligation to release/sell it than shrekli was.

~~~
s73v3r_
We could start a GoFundMe to purchase the album and release it.

~~~
sigstoat
i don't know that any of the crowd funding things are structured appropriately
for sending a representative to an auction to try and win something for a
crowd. that would be an interesting feature for them to add. regardless, best
of luck with that plan.

------
joshsyn
He was arrogant, but a damn, no-nonsense honest guy

------
hackermailman
Didn't see in the article if he did a plea or actually went through a trial
because in finance cases you're supposed to just plea using a hired 'prison
consultant' as part of the deal so you get the white glove Madoff treatment
where he's teaching economics to cons at a min security camp.

------
exabrial
The guy is certainly crass and I wouldn't trust him further than I can toss
him, but the way our legal system has treated him worries me if I'm ever
accused of a made up crime.

------
DoreenMichele
So he cried and pleaded for leniency after being openly a jackass the entire
time.

I have a child who is not innately good at the social thing. When he was 8, he
spent weeks torturing me for giggles because he knew I was not an abusive
parent, so he felt like he could get away with it. That stopped when I told
him "The point at which you are going to care about my feelings is when you
want something from me and my answer is Fuck You."

Apparently, Martin's mom should have had a similar conversation with him at
some point. Cuz now it hurts and he thinks we supposed to care about his
feefees when he never cared about anyone but him.

Turn about's fair play. Think on that while rotting in your cell.

------
thrillgore
Okay, so who wants to create an ICO to buy his Wu-Tang album when it goes up
for auction, and then publish it to the Internet Archive?

------
irunbackwards
Wu-Tang ain't nothin' to fuck wit.

------
c3534l
This whole thing seems like the justice system struggling to punish someone
for doing something that wasn't illegal, finding something else to pin him
with (and he was guilty of it, sure), then basing sentencing on that other
crime, but using this new charge as a smokescreen. This whole thing reeks of
corruption, but the kind of corruption where the people abusing their
authority think they're the good guys.

~~~
CobrastanJorji
Usually I withhold accusations like "reeks of corruption" for people who did
not definitely commit a serious felony and then antagonize the system about to
sentence me.

Did the fact that he was universally hated by the whole country make his
sentence for his crimes worse? It's entirely possible. Does that mean the
judge was corrupt? No, that's not what that word means.

What should you learn? If you're ever convicted of a serious crime, apologize
profusely, then shut up, and maybe don't offer a bounty of a presidential
candidate's hair.

------
PeterMikhailov
Great commentary by Jeb Lund

31 minutes in:

ttps://soundcloud.com/user-695156563/043-cocaine-nights

------
petrikapu
Justice has served. My fate on America as modern democracy increased +10 exp.

------
swamy_g
Glad to see many comments here denouncing this harsh sentencing. Good to know
HN also has folks who do their own individual research and not just abide by
the mainstream narrative.

------
dayaz36
This is insane. Sentencing guidelines for his crime was 0-12 months. He didn't
even lose his investors any money.

~~~
maskedinvader
not according to the Judge who cited Federal Law to determine he did incur
10.4 million in losses for the investors [1], it's complicated even though he
did pay the investors back after they became suspicious. My understanding is
this, say you leave your ferrari at the valet and the valet driver took it on
a joy ride and returns it undamaged, you didn't lose anything, but the valet
driver did break the law.

1\. [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-crime-
shkreli/pharma-...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-crime-
shkreli/pharma-bro-shkreli-to-be-held-responsible-for-10-4-million-in-losses-
u-s-judge-idUSKCN1GA2DB)

~~~
cypherpunks01
What law is the valet breaking in that case?

~~~
maskedinvader
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyride_(crime)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyride_\(crime\))

------
supergirl
convicted by the media for clicks

------
onecooldev24
The end of freedom of speech.

------
tomcam
It will be awful if his fellow inmates do to him what he did to patients.

~~~
inteleng
Offer free prescription fills to uninsured people who ask him for help? Your
comment seems to imply he'll be abused in prison, which is less than
acceptable.

------
seorphates
This is what jail is for, bad people that do bad things to others. Excepting
maybe bankers or traders, of course.

You know, as opposed to jailing good people that do "bad" things to
themselves.

------
jimjimjim
Role models. He was a rock star at being an asshole. This encourages others
who were maybe unsure of their assholeness to feel free to be more assholish.

The world need more good role models and less bad ones.

~~~
jimjimjim
I'm doubling down on my comment. There is a growing trend in not caring if you
are hated, and reveling in the attention. That only works while you are
powerful. If you fall you need friends and goodwill.

The world needs to stop rewarding purposefully angering people just for
attention.

------
marnett
Now the public can rest easy knowing that the _only_ person in pharmaceuticals
whose business model for increased profits was spending less on R&D and
raising the prices of drugs. Growth all around! /s

The public (including many people, unfortunately, in this thread) will now be
convinced that there is no more price gouging in pharmaceuticals, which is
patently false. It is still legal, it is still one of the primary business
models, and still no justice is served to the sick and uninsured.

Shkreli is going to jail because he almost (whether intentionally or not is to
be determined) brought regulation to an entire industry that thrives off of
raising prices on drugs needed to treat chronic conditions.

~~~
techman9
No. Shkreli is going to jail because he committed fraud.

------
swedish_mafia
This is a travesty.

He is sentenced not for drug prices but for this: he started a hedge fund
which lost money, used some of the funds to start a pharma co, the pharma co
did well went public and he returned the investors their money at a huge
profit for them.

Who sufffered? No one.

But he misrepresented his funds performance and did not inform them of the
pharma co investment.

This man is an entrepreneur.

~~~
s73v3r_
This man is not an entrepreneur, and to try and say so is to insult and demean
actual entrepreneurs everywhere.

His investors got lucky that he had the funds to repay them due to his other
company. Had he gotten away with this, he likely would have done it again, and
those investors might not have been so lucky.

~~~
swedish_mafia
You can talk after you take a biotech company public.

~~~
rpearl
no, we can talk about the fact that using fraud to fund legitimate activity
isn't entrepreneurship, now.

~~~
swedish_mafia
You don’t get to define the word. He started a company which is now public and
worth close to a billion dollars.

