4 ms·

To give some background on how his sentencing increased so dramatically, initially he was convicted but since no one lost any money his sentencing guidelines we

To give some background on how his sentencing increased so dramatically, initially he was convicted but since no one lost any money his sentencing guidelines were 0-12 months(most likely no jail time since it was his first offence). As a general rule of thumb in federal fraud cases sentencing is primarily determined by the what's called the "loss amount" of the crime in question. But a couple weeks ago the judge decided to come up with a HYPOTHETICAL loss and base the sentencing on that! And that hypothetical loss was set at $10.4M! Meaning he just went from no jail time 7 years overnight. This seems beyond absurd and as far as I know has no precedence.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
danso 9y ago
Where are your sources that he was only facing 0-12 months when he was initially convicited? There are stories from the time of his conviction (in 2017) that say he could potentially face decades in prison: https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/08/05/lack-of-remorse-could-bite-martin-shkreli-when-it-comes-time-for-sentencing-experts-say.html https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/08/05/lack-of-remors...
meritt 9y ago
> the judge decided to come up with a HYPOTHETICAL loss The judge issued a 96-page opinion [1] that details his crimes and the sentencing guidelines. It was not an off-the-cuff decision as you're suggesting. > This seems beyond absurd and as far as I know has no precedence. Your lack of knowledge on a subject does not make it absurd. [1] https://martinshkrelilacksjudgment.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/shkreli-judge-opin-loss-02-25-2018.pdf https://martinshkrelilacksjudgment.files.wordpress.com/2018/...
- dayaz36 9y ago
  I never suggested the judges decision was off the cuff, you just made that up. I simply stated that he is doing 7 years for a $10.4M hypothetical loss that never happened.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Are you saying that the investors money was not actually taken under false pretenses? Because the legal rule, based on precedent, applied was that the value fradulently taken (whether or not later returned) is the “loss amount” for sentencing purposes.
    - dayaz36 9y ago
      Not disputing that. Just saying there were no ACTUAL losses.
      - mruniverse 9y ago
        No actual loss because he returned it?
  - meritt 9y ago
    > hypothetical loss There were massive losses. It was only after Shkreli's scheme was unraveled and he realized was likely going to prison for his crimes that he gave disgruntled investors Retrophin stock to make up for their losses. Making things right after being caught committing a crime doesn't make the crime disappear.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> To give some background on how his sentencing increased so dramatically It didn't increase. His sentence was never anything else. > initially he was convicted but since no one lost any money his sentencing guidelines were 0-12 months(most likely no jail time since it was his first offence). False again. When the sentencing phase began, his lawyers argued there were no legal losses caused by his fraud, and prosecutors argued that losses were in the $9-20 million range. Both sides presented evidence and legal argument to support their position. > As a general rule of thumb in federal fraud cases sentencing is primarily determined by the what's called the "loss amount" of the crime in question. This much is correct. > But a couple weeks ago the judge decided to come up with a HYPOTHETICAL loss and base the sentencing on that! False; it was not a hypothetical loss amount. The court applied existing legal precedent that “loss in fraud cases includes the amount of property taken, even if all or part has been returned.” [0] [0] http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Shkreli-order.pdf http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Shk...
- cypherpunks01 9y ago
  Interesting! From your [0] link: "The Second Circuit repeatedly has held that “loss in fraud cases includes the amount of property taken, even if all or part has been returned.”" "(Rejecting the defendant’s argument that the value of his fraud victim’s equity in his partnership should be subtracted from the loss amount, and holding that “[t]he ‘loss’ was the money that the investors were fraudulently induced to invest ...irrespective of the value of the [property].”)" "The Sentencing Guidelines provide for specific “Credits Against Loss,” whereby loss calculations may be reduced by, inter alia, “[t]he money returned . . . by the defendant to the victim before the offense was detected.” The Guidelines define “time of detection” for purposes of credit against loss as “the earlier of (I) the time the offense was discovered by a victim or government agency; or (II) the time the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the offense was detected or about to be detected by a victim or government agency."
fwdpropaganda 9y ago
> initially he was convicted but since no one lost any money his sentencing guidelines were (...) So.. If I try to rob a bank and fail and no money is stolen, then the sentence should be reduced?
- onecooldev24 9y ago
  Running a hedge fund in completely different than robing a bank. You should use at least an iota of intelligence before commenting.
  - watwut 9y ago
    Sure, you don't go to prison for running hedge fund. That is legal. He was not convinced for running fund.
  - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
    And yet, you avoided answering the question :-)
    - onecooldev24 9y ago
      No your sentence should be that of whats historically been the sentence, not 700% more than average.
rhizome 9y ago
Guidelines were 27 years.
topbanana 9y ago
I heard it was originally going to be 50 days but the judge decided to mark it up by 5000pc

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

danso 9y ago

Where are your sources that he was only facing 0-12 months when he was initially convicited? There are stories from the time of his conviction (in 2017) that say he could potentially face decades in prison: https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/08/05/lack-of-remorse-could-bite-martin-shkreli-when-it-comes-time-for-sentencing-experts-say.html https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/08/05/lack-of-remors...

meritt 9y ago

> the judge decided to come up with a HYPOTHETICAL loss The judge issued a 96-page opinion [1] that details his crimes and the sentencing guidelines. It was not an off-the-cuff decision as you're suggesting. > This seems beyond absurd and as far as I know has no precedence. Your lack of knowledge on a subject does not make it absurd. [1] https://martinshkrelilacksjudgment.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/shkreli-judge-opin-loss-02-25-2018.pdf https://martinshkrelilacksjudgment.files.wordpress.com/2018/...

dayaz36 9y ago
I never suggested the judges decision was off the cuff, you just made that up. I simply stated that he is doing 7 years for a $10.4M hypothetical loss that never happened.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Are you saying that the investors money was not actually taken under false pretenses? Because the legal rule, based on precedent, applied was that the value fradulently taken (whether or not later returned) is the “loss amount” for sentencing purposes.
  - dayaz36 9y ago
    Not disputing that. Just saying there were no ACTUAL losses.
    - mruniverse 9y ago
      No actual loss because he returned it?
- meritt 9y ago
  > hypothetical loss There were massive losses. It was only after Shkreli's scheme was unraveled and he realized was likely going to prison for his crimes that he gave disgruntled investors Retrophin stock to make up for their losses. Making things right after being caught committing a crime doesn't make the crime disappear.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> To give some background on how his sentencing increased so dramatically It didn't increase. His sentence was never anything else. > initially he was convicted but since no one lost any money his sentencing guidelines were 0-12 months(most likely no jail time since it was his first offence). False again. When the sentencing phase began, his lawyers argued there were no legal losses caused by his fraud, and prosecutors argued that losses were in the $9-20 million range. Both sides presented evidence and legal argument to support their position. > As a general rule of thumb in federal fraud cases sentencing is primarily determined by the what's called the "loss amount" of the crime in question. This much is correct. > But a couple weeks ago the judge decided to come up with a HYPOTHETICAL loss and base the sentencing on that! False; it was not a hypothetical loss amount. The court applied existing legal precedent that “loss in fraud cases includes the amount of property taken, even if all or part has been returned.” [0] [0] http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Shkreli-order.pdf http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Shk...

cypherpunks01 9y ago
Interesting! From your [0] link: "The Second Circuit repeatedly has held that “loss in fraud cases includes the amount of property taken, even if all or part has been returned.”" "(Rejecting the defendant’s argument that the value of his fraud victim’s equity in his partnership should be subtracted from the loss amount, and holding that “[t]he ‘loss’ was the money that the investors were fraudulently induced to invest ...irrespective of the value of the [property].”)" "The Sentencing Guidelines provide for specific “Credits Against Loss,” whereby loss calculations may be reduced by, inter alia, “[t]he money returned . . . by the defendant to the victim before the offense was detected.” The Guidelines define “time of detection” for purposes of credit against loss as “the earlier of (I) the time the offense was discovered by a victim or government agency; or (II) the time the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the offense was detected or about to be detected by a victim or government agency."

fwdpropaganda 9y ago

> initially he was convicted but since no one lost any money his sentencing guidelines were (...) So.. If I try to rob a bank and fail and no money is stolen, then the sentence should be reduced?

onecooldev24 9y ago
Running a hedge fund in completely different than robing a bank. You should use at least an iota of intelligence before commenting.
- watwut 9y ago
  Sure, you don't go to prison for running hedge fund. That is legal. He was not convinced for running fund.
- fwdpropaganda 9y ago
  And yet, you avoided answering the question :-)
  - onecooldev24 9y ago
    No your sentence should be that of whats historically been the sentence, not 700% more than average.

rhizome 9y ago

Guidelines were 27 years.

topbanana 9y ago

I heard it was originally going to be 50 days but the judge decided to mark it up by 5000pc