8 ms·

Shkreli Got Prison Time, Holmes Didn’t. Is That Fair?

62 points by zonotope 9y ago

gormz 9y ago
No, no it's not. Shkreli wasn't even that bad of a dude. He was evil in the public eye because he wanted to be and honestly helped out a lot of bullshit happening in the pharmaceutical industry (that we already knew). Shkreli went to jail because reddit thought he was the worst dude in the world and he was the perfect skapegoat in the situation. People think justice was served even though it never will be. Sidenote: Hope his WuTang album goes into the public domain after this.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- 9889095r3jh 9y ago
  Please don't distort the record. He committed a crime (defrauding investors) which carried potential prison time as a sentence. Prosecutors sought 15 years. The judge sentenced him to just 7. Considering he displayed disdain for the law and showed little hope for reform, putting him away for 7 years seemed reasonable to the judge, as he would have likely committed more crimes had he gotten off with a wrist slap. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/business/martin-shkreli-sentenced.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/business/martin-shkreli-s...
  - whamlastxmas 9y ago
    I heard but didn't confirm that he made the investors whole. No one lost any money. Seven years for that, while people who have committed murder/rape get less, is ridiculous.
    - spamizbad 9y ago
      That's a very strange way of looking at money. What about opportunity cost? Lets say it's 2011 and you have $50,000 saved for a down payment on your dream house. I steal that money from you, but return you ~$56,000 7 years later (I've adjusted for inflation). Technically you haven't lost any money. But you missed the opportunity to purchase your dream house during a dip in the housing market while interest rates were low. Now, not only is your dream home 30% more expensive, interest rates are higher. You also missed out on 7 years worth of mortgage and real estate tax breaks. Your credit score isn't as robust either, since you don't have 7 years worth of mortgage history on it. You are way behind despite getting every penny back.
      - sudosteph 9y ago
        While it's true that these people would likely be richer if they had invested elsewhere, it's still hard to feel that these people were wronged. They didn't have someone break into their bank account and steal money for a house. They were wealthy investors who invested in a shady pharma company with a shady founder because they wanted to make lots of money without having to do much work themselves. Investments lose money legitimately all the time, and the investors weren't stolen from when that happens, it's just a bad investment. Shkreli abused the system and lied with the intention of making himself personally richer, so I definitely agree with sentencing him. But I don't think the investors deserve more than their money back. They need to assume SOME risk here b/c they chose a bad investment, and it probably would have failed anyhow, even if Shkreli had followed the law.
      - kolpa 9y ago
        Shkreli paid investors back with interest. http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/29/news/martin-shkreli-fraud-trial/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/29/news/martin-shkreli-fraud-tr... > After their meeting, Sarah Hassan invested $300,000 in MSMB Capital, a fund Shkreli ran. He later told her that investment had increased to $435,000, she said. [approximately 2 years later] > Hassan eventually settled with Shkreli and she even made money off her original investment. She told the court she received $400,000 in cash, plus 58,000 shares of Retrophin that were eventually sold for an additional $900,000.
      - kami8845 9y ago
        Yeah interest is how we value the opportunity cost of money. Saying that his investors missed the dip is as pointless as saying his investors missed the opportunity to short the SPX from the top.
    - UenoHDTV80 9y ago
      The judge who ruled on the case actually said specifically that it didn't matter whether he made the investors whole. https://www.bizjournals.com/newyork/news/2018/02/26/shkreli-could-get-more-prison-time.html https://www.bizjournals.com/newyork/news/2018/02/26/shkreli-... From article : Matsumoto rejected Brafman's argument that because investors made money with Shkreli, that he shouldn't be penalized for losses. Matsumoto said in Monday’s order that under federal law, all of the money that investors put in Shkreli’s funds as a result of his fraud, about $6.4 million, must be considered a loss (h/t Reuters). The judge also said the Turing Pharmaceuticals founder should get no credit for paying investors back because he only did so after they became suspicious.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
watwut 9y ago
"Typically you get more sympathy from the criminal justice system if you’re an attractive young woman than a brash, arrogant young male" The proper comparison would be to "brash, arrogant young women". You can even keep attractive as in "attractive, brash, arrogant young X" if you must. As in, large factor seem to be that Holmes was better at following layers advice about how to act in public and during investigation. She might be sociopath or whatever, but she managed not to be one publicly during the time the case was processed. Alternatively you can compare attractive polite young man to attractive polite young women. Or leave gender out. But hell, keep "ability to follow lawyers advice and not tease people in justice system while it is litigated" constant. Maybe justice system should be less eager to take offense. It just so happen that cops, prosecutors and judges are extremely easy to offend and have quite a lot of power. But you know, not calling prosecutor idiot while he is deciding about you is an important life skill if you plan to break the law.
- gormz 9y ago
  Yeah maybe, but I don't think he really cared. I hope more people care about the corruption in this sort of industry after this.
WheelsAtLarge 9y ago
Not fair for Shkreli, but he brought it upon himself. He made such a spectacle of his situation that prosecutors and judges had to hit him hard. They would have been highly criticised otherwise. Also, Holmes had so many high power people associated with the company that the media would have had a field day reporting on that and it would have been highly embarrassing for them. I'm sure they all helped her get the best deal. My view is that they both broke the law so they should have gotten time. Lesson learned, if you get in trouble with the law don't poke the bear.
- charlesdm 9y ago
  Shkreli sure did like to poke the bear, didn't he?
  - throwaway84742 9y ago
    So did Holmes: brazenly and knowingly lying to everyone qualifies as poking the bear in my book. She’s just much better connected, so she gets to live under another set of laws.
Zigurd 9y ago
No, it isn't fair. Moreover Shkreli's crime isn't within an order of magnitude of what Holmes did in terms of financial damage. Shkreli wasn't endangering lives with fake products. I'm pleased the Shkreli is doing time. That sends the right message. Holmes skating with a fine does not send the right message.
sudosteph 9y ago
Shkreli Story time. Not all that long ago, Shkreli was doing a stream on periscope where he asked people to call his personal number and tell him why they hated him. Most people were calling him and making up stories about the drug price killing their grandma or complaining about the wu-tang album, and his response was to be friendly, down-to-earth, and even charming in a way while re-framing the complaints into stuff that worked towards his favor (ie: "I gave the drug for free to people who couldn't pay, nobody died" and "Wu-Tang needed money, I like them, and they liked the offer I made"). For the most part it worked. He was trying to make the point that he wasn't an evil, awful guy, and that any "hate" people held for him was more of a trend of directing general anger towards him, rather than genuine, personal, hatred. On a whim though, a friend of mine and I called in, and by chance, we got through. The friend told him we hated him, but not for any of that stuff in the news. We hated him for squandering his wealth, time, and talents on ridiculous social media trolling (like the periscope thing). This actually seemed to get to him a bit, the conversation lasted at least 10 minutes. He justified it by saying stuff like "Some people relax by drinking and doing drugs, some people play sports, I like trolling people. What's the difference?". Ultimately, he tried to convince us that he was still trying to do meaningful stuff and that he wasn't obsessed with his social media presence (he even held up some book about AngularJS he said he was reading for a new startup to prove it, which we sorta laughed at). But he seemed a little unsettled by how the whole thing ended (us hanging up on him after he kept trying to maneuver out of the conversation in a way that made him look good). I got the feeling that he truly thought anyone who spent more than a few minutes with him would like him, and see through what he saw as an unfair media assault on him. Maybe he had this same attitude going into court too. Only reason I can think for him to behave so brashly throughout.
- ToFundorNot 9y ago
  I remember that one. He said he was learning to program (maybe it was angular JS, but are you sure it wasn't a book on mongodb?). I know that if someone were to question how I spend my time, it would strike a chord. Anyone who prides themselves on their work ethic would take the question personally. What was the end goal of asking the question?
  - 9y ago
yifanlu 9y ago
Let’s stop pretending that we, as a society, care about fairness here. Rich people always get away with more shit. Let’s just enjoy one rich asshole getting part of what he deserved instead of lamenting about how a second rich asshole didn’t. And yes, I said to enjoy it because don’t pretend these stories means anything more to you than the entertainment value. Either you ignore them or you acknowledge it is tabloid drama that you enjoy (I am in the latter group). Dude was a rich asshole who took internet trolling from a middle school hobby to a lifestyle. The deck was stacked in his favor and he still blew it. That’s what we care about and why we like this story.
- rainieri 9y ago
  Dude was poor with poor parents who worked his ass off to become a multimillionaire. And a lot of people do care about fairness. He wouldn't have delved in this troll personality if the witch hunt hadn't happened. Don't put everyone in the same bag.
mcv 9y ago
I find it typical that Shkreli was convicted for ripping off rich people, while his ripping off poor people turned out to be totally legal. Fair? Not remotely.
- rainieri 9y ago
  How did he rip off poor people?
  - mcv 9y ago
    He's mostly known for extreme price increases for medicine.
    - rainieri 9y ago
      A medicine for approximately 5000 people in the entire country. People with AIDS and toxoplasmosis. IIRC the increase is distributed among the entire population and he gave the drug for free to the small portion of people who didn't have insurance and couldn't afford it. If anything he ripped off insurance companies.
notlob 9y ago
It seems premature to ask the question in the title at this juncture, doesn't it? DoJ is still investigating Holmes.
projectramo 9y ago
For people who claim it wasn't fair but he was responsible: that is a contradiction. If it isn't fair, it isn't fair because his behavior -- however off-putting -- should not have lead to such severe punishment. I don't have an opinion as to whether it was fair because I don't know the details. I suspect the things that he did legally were often far worse than the things he did illegally.
patrickg_zill 9y ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/PussyPass/ https://www.reddit.com/r/PussyPass/ is packed with many examples. Shkreli got more prison time than many get for murder of a cheating spouse, or rape.
tim333 9y ago
It's not over yet - Holmes could still do time for fraud. Re Shkreli, as soon as he was convicted for security fraud and paroled he offered money to assault Hillary Clinton. What would you do as a judge? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41262249 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41262249
- patrickg_zill 9y ago
  Hair falls off of people's heads all the time. Especially older people's hair. To call it assault is overblown.

62 points by zonotope 9y ago

No, no it's not. Shkreli wasn't even that bad of a dude. He was evil in the public eye because he wanted to be and honestly helped out a lot of bullshit happening in the pharmaceutical industry (that we already knew). Shkreli went to jail because reddit thought he was the worst dude in the world and he was the perfect skapegoat in the situation. People think justice was served even though it never will be. Sidenote: Hope his WuTang album goes into the public domain after this.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
9889095r3jh 9y ago
Please don't distort the record. He committed a crime (defrauding investors) which carried potential prison time as a sentence. Prosecutors sought 15 years. The judge sentenced him to just 7. Considering he displayed disdain for the law and showed little hope for reform, putting him away for 7 years seemed reasonable to the judge, as he would have likely committed more crimes had he gotten off with a wrist slap. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/business/martin-shkreli-sentenced.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/business/martin-shkreli-s...
- whamlastxmas 9y ago
  I heard but didn't confirm that he made the investors whole. No one lost any money. Seven years for that, while people who have committed murder/rape get less, is ridiculous.
  - spamizbad 9y ago
    That's a very strange way of looking at money. What about opportunity cost? Lets say it's 2011 and you have $50,000 saved for a down payment on your dream house. I steal that money from you, but return you ~$56,000 7 years later (I've adjusted for inflation). Technically you haven't lost any money. But you missed the opportunity to purchase your dream house during a dip in the housing market while interest rates were low. Now, not only is your dream home 30% more expensive, interest rates are higher. You also missed out on 7 years worth of mortgage and real estate tax breaks. Your credit score isn't as robust either, since you don't have 7 years worth of mortgage history on it. You are way behind despite getting every penny back.
    - sudosteph 9y ago
      While it's true that these people would likely be richer if they had invested elsewhere, it's still hard to feel that these people were wronged. They didn't have someone break into their bank account and steal money for a house. They were wealthy investors who invested in a shady pharma company with a shady founder because they wanted to make lots of money without having to do much work themselves. Investments lose money legitimately all the time, and the investors weren't stolen from when that happens, it's just a bad investment. Shkreli abused the system and lied with the intention of making himself personally richer, so I definitely agree with sentencing him. But I don't think the investors deserve more than their money back. They need to assume SOME risk here b/c they chose a bad investment, and it probably would have failed anyhow, even if Shkreli had followed the law.
    - kolpa 9y ago
      Shkreli paid investors back with interest. http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/29/news/martin-shkreli-fraud-trial/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/29/news/martin-shkreli-fraud-tr... > After their meeting, Sarah Hassan invested $300,000 in MSMB Capital, a fund Shkreli ran. He later told her that investment had increased to $435,000, she said. [approximately 2 years later] > Hassan eventually settled with Shkreli and she even made money off her original investment. She told the court she received $400,000 in cash, plus 58,000 shares of Retrophin that were eventually sold for an additional $900,000.
    - kami8845 9y ago
      Yeah interest is how we value the opportunity cost of money. Saying that his investors missed the dip is as pointless as saying his investors missed the opportunity to short the SPX from the top.
  - UenoHDTV80 9y ago
    The judge who ruled on the case actually said specifically that it didn't matter whether he made the investors whole. https://www.bizjournals.com/newyork/news/2018/02/26/shkreli-could-get-more-prison-time.html https://www.bizjournals.com/newyork/news/2018/02/26/shkreli-... From article : Matsumoto rejected Brafman's argument that because investors made money with Shkreli, that he shouldn't be penalized for losses. Matsumoto said in Monday’s order that under federal law, all of the money that investors put in Shkreli’s funds as a result of his fraud, about $6.4 million, must be considered a loss (h/t Reuters). The judge also said the Turing Pharmaceuticals founder should get no credit for paying investors back because he only did so after they became suspicious.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

watwut 9y ago

"Typically you get more sympathy from the criminal justice system if you’re an attractive young woman than a brash, arrogant young male" The proper comparison would be to "brash, arrogant young women". You can even keep attractive as in "attractive, brash, arrogant young X" if you must. As in, large factor seem to be that Holmes was better at following layers advice about how to act in public and during investigation. She might be sociopath or whatever, but she managed not to be one publicly during the time the case was processed. Alternatively you can compare attractive polite young man to attractive polite young women. Or leave gender out. But hell, keep "ability to follow lawyers advice and not tease people in justice system while it is litigated" constant. Maybe justice system should be less eager to take offense. It just so happen that cops, prosecutors and judges are extremely easy to offend and have quite a lot of power. But you know, not calling prosecutor idiot while he is deciding about you is an important life skill if you plan to break the law.

gormz 9y ago
Yeah maybe, but I don't think he really cared. I hope more people care about the corruption in this sort of industry after this.

WheelsAtLarge 9y ago

Not fair for Shkreli, but he brought it upon himself. He made such a spectacle of his situation that prosecutors and judges had to hit him hard. They would have been highly criticised otherwise. Also, Holmes had so many high power people associated with the company that the media would have had a field day reporting on that and it would have been highly embarrassing for them. I'm sure they all helped her get the best deal. My view is that they both broke the law so they should have gotten time. Lesson learned, if you get in trouble with the law don't poke the bear.

charlesdm 9y ago
Shkreli sure did like to poke the bear, didn't he?
- throwaway84742 9y ago
  So did Holmes: brazenly and knowingly lying to everyone qualifies as poking the bear in my book. She’s just much better connected, so she gets to live under another set of laws.

Zigurd 9y ago

No, it isn't fair. Moreover Shkreli's crime isn't within an order of magnitude of what Holmes did in terms of financial damage. Shkreli wasn't endangering lives with fake products. I'm pleased the Shkreli is doing time. That sends the right message. Holmes skating with a fine does not send the right message.

sudosteph 9y ago

Shkreli Story time. Not all that long ago, Shkreli was doing a stream on periscope where he asked people to call his personal number and tell him why they hated him. Most people were calling him and making up stories about the drug price killing their grandma or complaining about the wu-tang album, and his response was to be friendly, down-to-earth, and even charming in a way while re-framing the complaints into stuff that worked towards his favor (ie: "I gave the drug for free to people who couldn't pay, nobody died" and "Wu-Tang needed money, I like them, and they liked the offer I made"). For the most part it worked. He was trying to make the point that he wasn't an evil, awful guy, and that any "hate" people held for him was more of a trend of directing general anger towards him, rather than genuine, personal, hatred. On a whim though, a friend of mine and I called in, and by chance, we got through. The friend told him we hated him, but not for any of that stuff in the news. We hated him for squandering his wealth, time, and talents on ridiculous social media trolling (like the periscope thing). This actually seemed to get to him a bit, the conversation lasted at least 10 minutes. He justified it by saying stuff like "Some people relax by drinking and doing drugs, some people play sports, I like trolling people. What's the difference?". Ultimately, he tried to convince us that he was still trying to do meaningful stuff and that he wasn't obsessed with his social media presence (he even held up some book about AngularJS he said he was reading for a new startup to prove it, which we sorta laughed at). But he seemed a little unsettled by how the whole thing ended (us hanging up on him after he kept trying to maneuver out of the conversation in a way that made him look good). I got the feeling that he truly thought anyone who spent more than a few minutes with him would like him, and see through what he saw as an unfair media assault on him. Maybe he had this same attitude going into court too. Only reason I can think for him to behave so brashly throughout.

ToFundorNot 9y ago
I remember that one. He said he was learning to program (maybe it was angular JS, but are you sure it wasn't a book on mongodb?). I know that if someone were to question how I spend my time, it would strike a chord. Anyone who prides themselves on their work ethic would take the question personally. What was the end goal of asking the question?
- 9y ago

yifanlu 9y ago

Let’s stop pretending that we, as a society, care about fairness here. Rich people always get away with more shit. Let’s just enjoy one rich asshole getting part of what he deserved instead of lamenting about how a second rich asshole didn’t. And yes, I said to enjoy it because don’t pretend these stories means anything more to you than the entertainment value. Either you ignore them or you acknowledge it is tabloid drama that you enjoy (I am in the latter group). Dude was a rich asshole who took internet trolling from a middle school hobby to a lifestyle. The deck was stacked in his favor and he still blew it. That’s what we care about and why we like this story.

rainieri 9y ago
Dude was poor with poor parents who worked his ass off to become a multimillionaire. And a lot of people do care about fairness. He wouldn't have delved in this troll personality if the witch hunt hadn't happened. Don't put everyone in the same bag.

mcv 9y ago

I find it typical that Shkreli was convicted for ripping off rich people, while his ripping off poor people turned out to be totally legal. Fair? Not remotely.

rainieri 9y ago
How did he rip off poor people?
- mcv 9y ago
  He's mostly known for extreme price increases for medicine.
  - rainieri 9y ago
    A medicine for approximately 5000 people in the entire country. People with AIDS and toxoplasmosis. IIRC the increase is distributed among the entire population and he gave the drug for free to the small portion of people who didn't have insurance and couldn't afford it. If anything he ripped off insurance companies.

notlob 9y ago

It seems premature to ask the question in the title at this juncture, doesn't it? DoJ is still investigating Holmes.

projectramo 9y ago

For people who claim it wasn't fair but he was responsible: that is a contradiction. If it isn't fair, it isn't fair because his behavior -- however off-putting -- should not have lead to such severe punishment. I don't have an opinion as to whether it was fair because I don't know the details. I suspect the things that he did legally were often far worse than the things he did illegally.

patrickg_zill 9y ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/PussyPass/ https://www.reddit.com/r/PussyPass/ is packed with many examples. Shkreli got more prison time than many get for murder of a cheating spouse, or rape.

tim333 9y ago

It's not over yet - Holmes could still do time for fraud. Re Shkreli, as soon as he was convicted for security fraud and paroled he offered money to assault Hillary Clinton. What would you do as a judge? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41262249 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41262249

patrickg_zill 9y ago
Hair falls off of people's heads all the time. Especially older people's hair. To call it assault is overblown.