5 ms·

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

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?

easytiger 9y ago
It is accurate from the perspective the investors actually made a lot of money out of him. Matt Levine sums it all up very well: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-12-17/martin-shkreli-accused-of-being-surprisingly-good-at-fraud https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-12-17/martin-sh... In short his hedge fund tanked, he started some new companies, retrospectively backdated the shareholding of the new company to make his loss making investors from the previous failure shareholders, that company ended up being successful and floated, those investors made a lot of money. But everything about what he did to make that possible is entirely dodgy/illegal.
- shawnz 9y ago
  But is his lawyer correct that forfeiture shouldn't occur in a situation like that?
  - easytiger 9y ago
    That I dunno. If no one has been left out of pocket, one could argue that there is nothing to return. Who or what are they compensating if no party suffered a material loss?
    - lmitchell 9y ago
      I think the relevant quote from the judgment is: 'criminal forfeiture serves no remedial purpose, [and] is designed to punish the offender...' So they don't actually care about compensation, they just have the right and want him to bleed.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    Penalties in these cases are based on losses suffered, and there were no losses. The US government is attempting to make an example out of Shkreli.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    If it was true that both no one was unjustly deprived and Shkreli had no direct or indirect gains (gross, not net of, say, separate criminal acts with offsetting effects taken together) for any of the individual crimes he was convicted of, it would seem to be accurate that the standards of the criminal forfeiture statute would not be met. OTOH, that doesn't actually seem likely to be true.
- Alex3917 9y ago
  Since Shkrelli made his investors whole by fraudulently putting more of his own money into the fund, are the investors then on the hook for paying back the money that Shkrelli 'stole' from himself?
  - jchw 9y ago
    Not sure, but my instinct would be no. If you pay a shopkeeper with a stolen dollar bill, does the shopkeeper have to give it back?
    - arkades 9y ago
      Not to you but to the person you stole it from, yes. The underlying legal principle being that though you had the item, you never had the legal control of its ownership, and thus although you transferred the item the original owner retained legal control of it.
      - jchw 9y ago
        Is this true? My instinct is that the person who stole it is still directly on the hook, but I'm not a lawyer.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        quickthrower2 9y ago
        Intuitively I'd think it's different for cash and goods. A stolen TV used in a barter transaction show of be returned. A dollar bill probably not. But 100k cash? Grey area? if you accept a dollar you can't reasonably be expected to do due diligence on it. But a large sum maybe.
        qbrass 9y ago
        You might have a case against the shopkeeper if you could prove they have the specific bill that was stolen from you.
CalChris 9y ago
Shkreli was convicted of fraud not theft. His lawyer could also say that Shkreli didn't actually kill anyone.
- pgrote 9y ago
  Is the seizure of assets a punishment or restitution?
- cmurf 9y ago
  Right. Society saying fraud is illegal with minor consequences, is an invitation to commit fraud. What I don't like is how disproportionate the DOJ is with individuals vs big companies. Shkreli will get fined into oblivion, the equivalent for the tobacco, sugar, and personal credit agencies would be cutting them in half, or maybe even their destruction.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    One person went to jail for the global financial crisis. Keep that in mind when judging Shkreli, who made everyone whole. Anyone go to jail at Equifax? Most definitely not, and that’s upended the credit system.
    - eric-hu 9y ago
      Has it actually upended the credit system yet? I wouldn't put it past the credit industry to find a way to profit at further cost to consumers.
    - cmurf 9y ago
      That's my point. Individuals committing fraud, few or not people hurt and they throw the book at you and take all your stuff. Whereas these big corporate wrong doings that have very negatively impacted people's lives pretty much get a yawn.
hourislate 9y ago
I have been following this for a while and was always amused that no one lost money. The actual witness the prosecution brought forward made money. It's why I believe this whole affair is for Public Consumption. They need to hang someone and he became a target. It didn't help that he couldn't just let his lawyer handle everything. He would have probably avoided jail and payed a small fine.
- bsder 9y ago
  > They need to hang someone and he became a target. Ayup. If they don't hang him, they might have to go after somebody actually important in the pharmaceutical industry. > It didn't help that he couldn't just let his lawyer handle everything. Shkreli seems to be just absolutely, preternaturally unable to shut the fuck up.
  - thrownblown 9y ago
    He's probably got toxoplasmosis
- DenisM 9y ago
  Attempted murder is still a crime, even if no one was hurt. Similarly, fraud is still a crime even if no one lost money. The purpose of the law is to discourage situations that were deemed likely to yield harm, regardless of whether the victims lucked out this particular time. Consider a drunk cab driver for example. No one is hurt, and the passenger is home in one piece. Still should be a crime, no?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - allenz 9y ago
    I think much of the discomfort comes from the fact that white collar crime typically goes unpunished. (How many CEOs went to jail after the financial crisis?) There is the perception, warranted or not, that Shkreli was prosecuted simply because he stands out, which would be unjust.
Miner49er 9y ago
It's true, his case is interesting in that there really was no victims. It was a victemless crime. Still a crime however.
- jjeaff 9y ago
  But to not prosecuted would set a bad example for the many future occasions where the front won't work out in the investor's favor.
- cowsandmilk 9y ago
  His lawyer is very careful in his statements not to say that. Investors in Retrophin made a lot money. They would have made more if Shkreli had not committed fraud. His lawyer’s argument is basically that the investors made money and it doesn’t matter that Shkreli used the company as his piggy bank, issuing shares, thus diluting investors, and writing checks to settle his debts and make whole the investors in his previous hedge fund. There were victims. Victims who made a lot of money, but would have made more if Shkreli hadn’t committed fraud.
  - OscarCunningham 9y ago
    Yes, but he wasn't convicted of fraud against his Retrophin investors, he was convicted of fraud against his previous investors (the ones he paid with Retrophin money). So it's peculiar to use the Retrophin investors as justification for seizing his assets.
- chiliap2 9y ago
  How can something be a crime if there are no victims?
  - kamaal 9y ago
    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.
dragonwriter 9y ago
It seems at best dubious to claim that the frauds which funded the company of which Shkreli was CEO did not personally benefit Shkreli, directly or indirectly, so I'd say on first impression it doesn't seem likely to be accurate (it may be legitimate as an argument in the sense of not being an interpretation entirely ruled out by the evidence, however.)

easytiger 9y ago

It is accurate from the perspective the investors actually made a lot of money out of him. Matt Levine sums it all up very well: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-12-17/martin-shkreli-accused-of-being-surprisingly-good-at-fraud https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-12-17/martin-sh... In short his hedge fund tanked, he started some new companies, retrospectively backdated the shareholding of the new company to make his loss making investors from the previous failure shareholders, that company ended up being successful and floated, those investors made a lot of money. But everything about what he did to make that possible is entirely dodgy/illegal.

shawnz 9y ago
But is his lawyer correct that forfeiture shouldn't occur in a situation like that?
- easytiger 9y ago
  That I dunno. If no one has been left out of pocket, one could argue that there is nothing to return. Who or what are they compensating if no party suffered a material loss?
  - lmitchell 9y ago
    I think the relevant quote from the judgment is: 'criminal forfeiture serves no remedial purpose, [and] is designed to punish the offender...' So they don't actually care about compensation, they just have the right and want him to bleed.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Penalties in these cases are based on losses suffered, and there were no losses. The US government is attempting to make an example out of Shkreli.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  If it was true that both no one was unjustly deprived and Shkreli had no direct or indirect gains (gross, not net of, say, separate criminal acts with offsetting effects taken together) for any of the individual crimes he was convicted of, it would seem to be accurate that the standards of the criminal forfeiture statute would not be met. OTOH, that doesn't actually seem likely to be true.
Alex3917 9y ago
Since Shkrelli made his investors whole by fraudulently putting more of his own money into the fund, are the investors then on the hook for paying back the money that Shkrelli 'stole' from himself?
- jchw 9y ago
  Not sure, but my instinct would be no. If you pay a shopkeeper with a stolen dollar bill, does the shopkeeper have to give it back?
  - arkades 9y ago
    Not to you but to the person you stole it from, yes. The underlying legal principle being that though you had the item, you never had the legal control of its ownership, and thus although you transferred the item the original owner retained legal control of it.
    - jchw 9y ago
      Is this true? My instinct is that the person who stole it is still directly on the hook, but I'm not a lawyer.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - quickthrower2 9y ago
        Intuitively I'd think it's different for cash and goods. A stolen TV used in a barter transaction show of be returned. A dollar bill probably not. But 100k cash? Grey area? if you accept a dollar you can't reasonably be expected to do due diligence on it. But a large sum maybe.
      - qbrass 9y ago
        You might have a case against the shopkeeper if you could prove they have the specific bill that was stolen from you.

CalChris 9y ago

Shkreli was convicted of fraud not theft. His lawyer could also say that Shkreli didn't actually kill anyone.

pgrote 9y ago
Is the seizure of assets a punishment or restitution?
cmurf 9y ago
Right. Society saying fraud is illegal with minor consequences, is an invitation to commit fraud. What I don't like is how disproportionate the DOJ is with individuals vs big companies. Shkreli will get fined into oblivion, the equivalent for the tobacco, sugar, and personal credit agencies would be cutting them in half, or maybe even their destruction.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  One person went to jail for the global financial crisis. Keep that in mind when judging Shkreli, who made everyone whole. Anyone go to jail at Equifax? Most definitely not, and that’s upended the credit system.
  - eric-hu 9y ago
    Has it actually upended the credit system yet? I wouldn't put it past the credit industry to find a way to profit at further cost to consumers.
  - cmurf 9y ago
    That's my point. Individuals committing fraud, few or not people hurt and they throw the book at you and take all your stuff. Whereas these big corporate wrong doings that have very negatively impacted people's lives pretty much get a yawn.

hourislate 9y ago

I have been following this for a while and was always amused that no one lost money. The actual witness the prosecution brought forward made money. It's why I believe this whole affair is for Public Consumption. They need to hang someone and he became a target. It didn't help that he couldn't just let his lawyer handle everything. He would have probably avoided jail and payed a small fine.

bsder 9y ago
> They need to hang someone and he became a target. Ayup. If they don't hang him, they might have to go after somebody actually important in the pharmaceutical industry. > It didn't help that he couldn't just let his lawyer handle everything. Shkreli seems to be just absolutely, preternaturally unable to shut the fuck up.
- thrownblown 9y ago
  He's probably got toxoplasmosis
DenisM 9y ago
Attempted murder is still a crime, even if no one was hurt. Similarly, fraud is still a crime even if no one lost money. The purpose of the law is to discourage situations that were deemed likely to yield harm, regardless of whether the victims lucked out this particular time. Consider a drunk cab driver for example. No one is hurt, and the passenger is home in one piece. Still should be a crime, no?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- allenz 9y ago
  I think much of the discomfort comes from the fact that white collar crime typically goes unpunished. (How many CEOs went to jail after the financial crisis?) There is the perception, warranted or not, that Shkreli was prosecuted simply because he stands out, which would be unjust.

Miner49er 9y ago

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

jjeaff 9y ago
But to not prosecuted would set a bad example for the many future occasions where the front won't work out in the investor's favor.
cowsandmilk 9y ago
His lawyer is very careful in his statements not to say that. Investors in Retrophin made a lot money. They would have made more if Shkreli had not committed fraud. His lawyer’s argument is basically that the investors made money and it doesn’t matter that Shkreli used the company as his piggy bank, issuing shares, thus diluting investors, and writing checks to settle his debts and make whole the investors in his previous hedge fund. There were victims. Victims who made a lot of money, but would have made more if Shkreli hadn’t committed fraud.
- OscarCunningham 9y ago
  Yes, but he wasn't convicted of fraud against his Retrophin investors, he was convicted of fraud against his previous investors (the ones he paid with Retrophin money). So it's peculiar to use the Retrophin investors as justification for seizing his assets.
chiliap2 9y ago
How can something be a crime if there are no victims?
- kamaal 9y ago
  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.

dragonwriter 9y ago

It seems at best dubious to claim that the frauds which funded the company of which Shkreli was CEO did not personally benefit Shkreli, directly or indirectly, so I'd say on first impression it doesn't seem likely to be accurate (it may be legitimate as an argument in the sense of not being an interpretation entirely ruled out by the evidence, however.)