6 ms·

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

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.

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.