4 ms·
It's true, his case is interesting in that there really was no victims. It was a victemless crime. Still a crime however.
by 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 agoBut 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 agoHis 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 agoYes, 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 agoHow can something be a crime if there are no victims?
- kamaal 9y agoIts 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 9y agoNot true. Arson requires malicious intent / lack of consent.
- el_benhameen 9y agoIf I slam on my brakes while driving on the freeway, throw my car into reverse, and manage to get home without hitting anyone, I’ve still broken the law. I think we want to sanction dangerous behavior regardless of outcome. That Shkreli didn’t lose his investors’ money is luck and should have nothing to do with his punishment for doing something that could well have lost people money.
- jack9 9y agoCrime (criminal liability) is violation of statute. Civil liability is based on harm caused. It's been this way for a long time.
- cgmg 9y agoIt's unfortunate that questions which invite clarification and education are constantly downvoted on HN.
- jayd16 9y agoIts a victemless crime because he got lucky. If the whole scheme tanked, the fraud would be more obvious. I'm not sure the distinction is relevant. If you knock over a liquor store and the register is empty, seems to me its still a crime even if you didn't make off with anything.
- fmihaila 9y agoBut if I leave more money in the register than it contained to begin with, what are the damages that must be covered by forfeiture?
- jayd16 9y agoI guess its closer to stealing from the register and leaving a lottery ticket that happen to be a winner. Still seems perfectly convictable to me.
- fmihaila 9y ago> I guess its closer to stealing from the register and leaving a lottery ticket that happen to be a winner. Yes, this is a better analogy. > Still seems perfectly convictable to me. The question, though, isn't whether he should go to jail; I think he should. It's whether he should lose his assets to the government (I think he shouldn't).
- mikeg8 9y agoCompensation for the psychological harm you've caused the teller as well as the law enforcement resources who were dispatched to the scene? Whether I'm right or wrong is irrelevant... at a certain point, these tangents don't contribute much to the top level case
- fusiongyro 9y agoBreaking into the store and breaking open the register are crimes even if you leave more money in the register.