6 ms·

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 ho

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-chapter-2-c#2b11 https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2016-guidelines-manual/2016-... [2] https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2016-guidelines-manual/2016-chapter-5 https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2016-guidelines-manual/2016-...

lomnakkus 9y ago
EDIT: OK, nevermind, I guess.
- cloakandswagger 9y ago
  >Perhaps that makes me a bad person. Not bad, merely ignorant. You're celebrating the incarceration of someone you presumably know very little about, all while searching for "true" victims ("perhaps the public?") to fuel your indignation.
  - wavefunction 9y ago
    I feel great. Shrekeli's a terrible person and I'm comfortable with him being held to account for his crimes.
    - Overtonwindow 9y ago
      Perhaps society doing a societal good. A shot across the bow when organs of state have failed them.
      - cm2187 9y ago
        Like Al Capone going to jail for tax fraud.
        Overtonwindow 9y ago
        Didn't he commit tax fraud, though? There was no stretch of the law was there?
        cm2187 9y ago
        There wasn't but he was hit hard for tax fraud really to punish him for his other crimes.
    - throwaway7312 9y ago
      Glee at the suffering of others hardly marks a man as more evolved. From where I sit, I do not see much difference between the man this article is about, and those enjoying schadenfreude at his expense. All are trapped in the same place.
  - lomnakkus 9y ago
    No, I think you actually mean bad. (That's not to say I don't understand your sentinment towards me, but really... I haven't hiked prices on life-saving medicines by upwards of 1000%, etc., so at least I win on moral relatisivm points?) This man has harmed quite a few people... or their insurance companies... which of course means harming of their customers, i.e. "us" (who can even afford insurance). I know enough about Shkreli to consider him an awful, awful person. Do I need to know how much he loves his children, or something equally conceited and pointless? No, no I don't. EDIT: Oh, wait, you're one of those extremist libertarian types, aren't you? (At least judging by your most recent 5 comments). EDIT: Look, if he hadn't been convicted of securities fraud, I would still be defending his rights as a... defendant, but now that he has been convicted, I don't feel sorry for him. (For ultimately unrelated reasons, as it turns out. I'm guessing I'm a bad person for that.)
    - lend000 9y ago
      > I know enough about Shkreli to consider him an awful, awful person. That isn't what this trial is about. Just because you don't like someone because of one thing, doesn't mean they should be getting a harsh sentence for a separate crime (which apparently had no victims). Perhaps instead of vilifying characters who break the not at all free market pharmaceutical industry, and name-calling people who espouse ideologies that conflict with your pre-existing beliefs, you should instead consider why a single guy was able to stir up so much trouble in your heavily regulated medical industry. Was it because there wasn't enough government to protect people? Or was it more likely due to an extremely high barrier to entry to the pharmaceutical industry imposed by the FDA? (And in other cases, excessive IP protections play a significant role). I'll leave it as an exercise.
    - bmelton 9y ago
      > Look, if he hadn't been convicted of securities fraud, I would still be defending his rights as a... defendant, but now that he has been convicted, I don't feel sorry for him. Unfair sentencing is just as much judicial malfeasance as is prosecutorial misconduct, unfair court trials or allegations. As citizens of America (which I assume, but do not know you to be) we should all champion fairness at ever level of the judicial process at all times, lest we ever find ourselves or our friends in the crosshairs of a court that we've allowed to give punitive sentencing to. There are undoubtedly very good debates to be had on what might be considered a fair sentence for a crime of this nature, but if you're damning him for crimes completely disconnected from this case, then by definition you are championing an unfair sentence. That's the sort of thing that has allowed our judicial system to get away with so much unfair treatment in the past, and for all our sakes, we should root against it at every level.
turc1656 9y ago
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.
- Froyoh 9y ago
  I'm willing to say less than 1 year, we'll see who's right ;)
  - cornedor 9y ago
    He just said in a podcast with h3h3 that it would something like 6 months.
- slewis 9y ago
  It'd be interesting to hear why you'd like 4-6 years. I'm not judging your preference or response, really just curious.
  - wcummings 9y ago
    Seems like a sorta horrible thing to say imo, 6 years is a long time to spend in prison.
- fastball 9y ago
  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.
cm2187 9y ago
I believe it is the SEC suing him for fraud, not investors trying to recoup losses. If you commit fraud in the financial industry, whether with or without harm, the regulator will come after you.
- downandout 9y ago
  SEC can only file civil actions. This is a criminal case, which can only be brought by the DOJ.
  - cm2187 9y ago
    Either way. Not investors suing him.
    - keganunderwood 9y ago
      Interesting point. Never realized the government has a monopoly on bringing criminal charges.
EdgarVerona 9y ago
I should point out too that his being able to pay them back with profit really had nothing to do with his original taking of money. It is tantamount to pure luck that he was able to, entirely separately from the fraud, recoup their losses. Had it not been for that separate channel of money available to him, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to undo the damage done by his harm. And THAT is why this is a punishable crime. If you stab someone and then treat the wound and it heals entirely - even if you find, say, a tumor while you're treating the wound and end up unintentionally saving the person's life, you have still committed the crime of assault. It was only by coincidence that you helped the person out after the crime was committed.
- wpietri 9y ago
  Yes, exactly. Look at Madoff. Early on, it's entirely possible that he could have gotten lucky trading and made the money back. That still doesn't change the fact that he committed fraud. If we only punish the people who lose money, we create a huge incentive for more fraud, because it encourages yet more "double or nothing" behavior on the part of people who screw up.

lomnakkus 9y ago

EDIT: OK, nevermind, I guess.

cloakandswagger 9y ago
>Perhaps that makes me a bad person. Not bad, merely ignorant. You're celebrating the incarceration of someone you presumably know very little about, all while searching for "true" victims ("perhaps the public?") to fuel your indignation.
- wavefunction 9y ago
  I feel great. Shrekeli's a terrible person and I'm comfortable with him being held to account for his crimes.
  - Overtonwindow 9y ago
    Perhaps society doing a societal good. A shot across the bow when organs of state have failed them.
    - cm2187 9y ago
      Like Al Capone going to jail for tax fraud.
      - Overtonwindow 9y ago
        Didn't he commit tax fraud, though? There was no stretch of the law was there?
        cm2187 9y ago
        There wasn't but he was hit hard for tax fraud really to punish him for his other crimes.
  - throwaway7312 9y ago
    Glee at the suffering of others hardly marks a man as more evolved. From where I sit, I do not see much difference between the man this article is about, and those enjoying schadenfreude at his expense. All are trapped in the same place.
- lomnakkus 9y ago
  No, I think you actually mean bad. (That's not to say I don't understand your sentinment towards me, but really... I haven't hiked prices on life-saving medicines by upwards of 1000%, etc., so at least I win on moral relatisivm points?) This man has harmed quite a few people... or their insurance companies... which of course means harming of their customers, i.e. "us" (who can even afford insurance). I know enough about Shkreli to consider him an awful, awful person. Do I need to know how much he loves his children, or something equally conceited and pointless? No, no I don't. EDIT: Oh, wait, you're one of those extremist libertarian types, aren't you? (At least judging by your most recent 5 comments). EDIT: Look, if he hadn't been convicted of securities fraud, I would still be defending his rights as a... defendant, but now that he has been convicted, I don't feel sorry for him. (For ultimately unrelated reasons, as it turns out. I'm guessing I'm a bad person for that.)
  - lend000 9y ago
    > I know enough about Shkreli to consider him an awful, awful person. That isn't what this trial is about. Just because you don't like someone because of one thing, doesn't mean they should be getting a harsh sentence for a separate crime (which apparently had no victims). Perhaps instead of vilifying characters who break the not at all free market pharmaceutical industry, and name-calling people who espouse ideologies that conflict with your pre-existing beliefs, you should instead consider why a single guy was able to stir up so much trouble in your heavily regulated medical industry. Was it because there wasn't enough government to protect people? Or was it more likely due to an extremely high barrier to entry to the pharmaceutical industry imposed by the FDA? (And in other cases, excessive IP protections play a significant role). I'll leave it as an exercise.
  - bmelton 9y ago
    > Look, if he hadn't been convicted of securities fraud, I would still be defending his rights as a... defendant, but now that he has been convicted, I don't feel sorry for him. Unfair sentencing is just as much judicial malfeasance as is prosecutorial misconduct, unfair court trials or allegations. As citizens of America (which I assume, but do not know you to be) we should all champion fairness at ever level of the judicial process at all times, lest we ever find ourselves or our friends in the crosshairs of a court that we've allowed to give punitive sentencing to. There are undoubtedly very good debates to be had on what might be considered a fair sentence for a crime of this nature, but if you're damning him for crimes completely disconnected from this case, then by definition you are championing an unfair sentence. That's the sort of thing that has allowed our judicial system to get away with so much unfair treatment in the past, and for all our sakes, we should root against it at every level.

turc1656 9y ago

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.

Froyoh 9y ago
I'm willing to say less than 1 year, we'll see who's right ;)
- cornedor 9y ago
  He just said in a podcast with h3h3 that it would something like 6 months.
slewis 9y ago
It'd be interesting to hear why you'd like 4-6 years. I'm not judging your preference or response, really just curious.
- wcummings 9y ago
  Seems like a sorta horrible thing to say imo, 6 years is a long time to spend in prison.
fastball 9y ago
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.

cm2187 9y ago

I believe it is the SEC suing him for fraud, not investors trying to recoup losses. If you commit fraud in the financial industry, whether with or without harm, the regulator will come after you.

downandout 9y ago
SEC can only file civil actions. This is a criminal case, which can only be brought by the DOJ.
- cm2187 9y ago
  Either way. Not investors suing him.
  - keganunderwood 9y ago
    Interesting point. Never realized the government has a monopoly on bringing criminal charges.

EdgarVerona 9y ago

I should point out too that his being able to pay them back with profit really had nothing to do with his original taking of money. It is tantamount to pure luck that he was able to, entirely separately from the fraud, recoup their losses. Had it not been for that separate channel of money available to him, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to undo the damage done by his harm. And THAT is why this is a punishable crime. If you stab someone and then treat the wound and it heals entirely - even if you find, say, a tumor while you're treating the wound and end up unintentionally saving the person's life, you have still committed the crime of assault. It was only by coincidence that you helped the person out after the crime was committed.

wpietri 9y ago
Yes, exactly. Look at Madoff. Early on, it's entirely possible that he could have gotten lucky trading and made the money back. That still doesn't change the fact that he committed fraud. If we only punish the people who lose money, we create a huge incentive for more fraud, because it encourages yet more "double or nothing" behavior on the part of people who screw up.