4 ms·

Worded differently, it doesn't sound like that would be such an unreasonable sentencing argument?

• tedunangst 9y ago
  That was his argument. The judge decided that payback after the loss was mostly irrelevant, and loss is loss, even if never realized.
  • ryanlol 9y ago
    Just because it didn't work for Shkreli doesn't make it any less of a reasonable argument in general. In Shkrelis case the judge dismissed this argument specifically because he only paid his investors back after they had already became suspicious, had he done so before that his behavior would have almost certainly been viewed differently. It is absolutely normal to take things like this into account during sentencing. And since it seems to be terribly difficult for some people here to understand, I'm not defending Shkreli and nor do I think there's anything wrong with his sentence.
    • tedunangst 9y ago
      All comments here seem to be terribly difficult to understand.