4 ms·

Well, you seem to be saying that because the investment tripled, then no crime has taken place. That's not really how it works.

• theptip 9y ago
  Exactly. Matt Levine has a good summary: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-02-28/big-companies-can-keep-big-secrets https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-02-28/big-compa... "The government's argument is that those investors did lose money; it's just that Shkreli eventually paid them back after they started complaining. If your fraud loses money for investors, and they catch you, and you pay them back, then the losses still count. And while Shkreli has an argument that that's not what happened here -- that he gave Retrophin stock to the funds out of the goodness of his heart after they suffered honest losses, rather than to settle legal claims from disgruntled investors accusing him of fraud -- it is frankly not a very good one. And so he is getting tagged with the full amount that investors put into his funds, even though those investors all ultimately got paid back. That seems analytically correct, though also a bit rough on him. Shkreli is obviously an unpopular character but he is not, as these things go, a particularly bad fraudster. His lawyers were seeking a sentence of "perhaps just 16 months or less," and that actually sounds about right to me for this sort of fraud. If he gets much more than that, I suppose it can be technically justified by legal arguments about the amount of loss that he caused, but I suspect it will really be driven more by his all-around dreadfulness."
• Clubber 9y ago
  I didn't intend to insinuate that. I was more trying to paint a picture of him being a scapegoat for the monopolization of drug prices. His prosecution diverted the public eye from this much larger problem.