6 ms·

He committed pretty egregious financial crimes. They didn't have to "dig" far. People do understand that most people aren't hiding major felonies or securities

He committed pretty egregious financial crimes. They didn't have to "dig" far. People do understand that most people aren't hiding major felonies or securities fraud, right? Most of us aren't evading taxes. We aren't running ponzi schemes. We aren't defrauding lenders. You can scrutinize the situation of the vast majority of people and come up with nothing beyond maybe a tag taken off a mattress (har). Somehow in the (post) Trump era we have loads of people who really, truly believe it is some sort of injustice when people get scrutiny for the crimes they are actually committing.

philwelch 5y ago
It's surprisingly easy to commit a federal offense: https://twitter.com/CrimeADay https://twitter.com/CrimeADay
- defaultname 5y ago
  There's always a logical fallacy in this sort of argument- a) There are loads of extremely specific laws for various very specific problems. e.g. Taking obsidian from an obsidian flow federal park, for instance. b) Ergo everyone commits crimes!. We're all criminals, they just selectively choose what to enforce! b) doesn't follow at all. The vast majority of people will never even be in a situation where it was possible to commit the overwhelming bulk of laws on the book. And that never would regardless. FWIW, criminals think everyone is a criminal. Tax evaders think it's just normal. Thieves think everyone steals. Etc.
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    >"Ergo everyone commits crimes!. We're all criminals, they just selectively choose what to enforce!" I highly recommend watching "Don't Talk to the Police", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE for a different perspective of where the GP is coming from. While it is true the vast majority of the US Code is something that simply won't apply to you (like the obsidian example), there are plenty of laws on the books that are vague and subject to abuse by a motivated prosecutor. One such example is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which is a massive topic in-and-of-itself.
  - salawat 5y ago
    >FWIW, criminals think everyone is a criminal. Tax evaders think it's just normal. Thieves think everyone steals. Etc... ...and law abiding folk think they never break the law. Ever lent someone money at 0% interest? Did you report it on your taxes? If not, you may technically be guilty of tax evasion. Ever binned someone else's junk mail? Welcome to mail tampering. There is a big difference between the law as written and the law as enforced. I guarantee you, if you go looking hard enough, there are some downright stupid laws on the books. Hell look at mask laws! It was a huge controversy in some places last year because minorities in jurisdictions with historical anti-face covering statutes we're damned if they did, damned if they didn't. Look at San Fran. The DA won't prosecute shoplifters, yet people walk out stores without paying under the statutory threshold. You going to try to say that the law makes even a lick of sense when you get degenerate circumstances? Or are you going to take refuge in "Well, only the laws that matter?" If we go down that road it only gets worse. How about... Mmmm. Jaywalking? Loitering? Noise violations that never got reported? Driving overweight vehicles down a road designed with weight capacity 1 ton less? Using an aerosol not perfectly in accordance with the instructions? Test driven an vehicle you didn't have registered on a public road? Improperly disposed of medication? Thrown a lithium ion battery in the garbage? Travelled with something in a trailer that qualifies as hazmat without getting a placard? Speeding? Had livestock escape, damage something, with no real dramatic outcome? Still infractions. Even if charges aren't pressed.
    - defaultname 5y ago
      "Look at San Fran. The DA won't prosecute shoplifters, yet people walk out stores without paying under the statutory threshold. You going to try to say that the law makes even a lick of sense when you get degenerate circumstances?" Let's just focus on this nugget- -the DA made no such claim -the threshold in San Francisco is actually LOWER than Texas. So much was made about that when people were truly clueless about what they claimed -in reality there are almost no prosecutions because the activist police force simply doesn't bother responding Police nationwide tend to be pretty far to the right (see the NYPD having a barely above 40% vaccination level right now as a good benchmark of that, which as an aside vaccination should absolutely be a requirement for their job), and they like to intentionally do a really shit job if it achieves their talking points. The guys rushing into stores and filling garbage bags? Yup, the police should be arresting them. That they don't has nothing to do with the DA.
  - philwelch 5y ago
    Do people who make ad hominem comments on the internet think that everyone makes ad hominem comments on the internet?
    - defaultname 5y ago
      Not only was my comment in no way an ad hominem, it's pretty ironic that you attempt one to denigrate.
      - philwelch 5y ago
        Responding to "it's surprisingly easy to commit a federal offense" with "FWIW, criminals think everyone is a criminal" can be reasonably interpreted as an ad hominem. If that's not what you meant, what did you mean by that comment?
        defaultname 5y ago
        It's a general comment relating to the general discussion of how law-breaking a peoples are. Maybe don't take every comment personally?
        philwelch 5y ago
        What makes you think I took it personally? I was just making a general comment about how people who make ad hominem comments on the internet are.
rchaud 5y ago
I wouldn't say it's post-Trump. Online discussion boards have long been home to armchair contrarianism. I will say that these days it's couched in "devil's advocate" and alarmist "your freedom is at stake!" type language. Or, in this case, temporarily embarrassed hedge fund managers that do not wish to have such a fate befall them.
kgantchev 5y ago
The "financial crimes" seem to have no victims since none of his investors actually sued him. If he really defrauded them, as the government claims in their successful lawsuit and conviction, then I'm pretty sure they would have sued him also. Why haven't his allegedly defrauded investors sued him? BTW, let me quote one of his investors, Lindsay Rosenwald: Rosenwald testified that in 2012, Shkreli told him he was winding down MSMB Capital. And Shkreli offered Rosenwald the opportunity to roll over what Shkreli purported was by then Rosenwald’s $200,000 stake in MSMB Capital into Retrophin, a new drug company he was creating. "I was given the option of taking the cash or taking the stock, I wanted the cash, I didn’t get the cash.” Rosenwald testified that he later, over time, sold off his shares of Retrophin. He said that, taking into account his original stake of $100,000 in MSMB Capital, he did make a profit on those stock sales. Asked how much, Rosenwald said, “Somewhere between $400,000 and $600,000, I think.”[1] Another investor "realized a profit of almost $1.3 million after selling Retrophin shares it had acquired as a result of a $125,000 initial investment by that fund, Hassan testified."[2] In short, Shkreli did lie to his investors because he lost their money in the failed hedge fund. However, when he made another business, he rolled their accounts into shares of that business which actually made them a pretty sizable profit. I guess in this Cancel Culture era, the pious feel justified in the destruction of anybody they don't like. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/06/martin-shkreli-kept-hedge-fund-investor-in-dark-about-botched-trade.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/06/martin-shkreli-kept-hedge-fu... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/29/investor-in-martin-shkreli-fund-felt-betrayed-by-pharma-bro.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/29/investor-in-martin-shkreli-f...
- mypalmike 5y ago
  Many ponzi scheme fraudsters roll over the dwindling investments, hoping to hit the big payday that lets them fulfill the promised returns to the investors. Unlike most, Shkreli got very lucky and found a successful exit.
- defaultname 5y ago
  >The "financial crimes" seem to have no victims since none of his investors actually sued him They were overt, literal, indisputable financial crimes. Not sure why you decided to scare-quote that. Making someone you defrauded whole again doesn't erase the crime. The notion that it would is ludicrous. >I guess in this Cancel Culture era Give it a rest. There is a truth that if you are a criminal you probably shouldn't draw attention to yourself. If you're a drug dealer, don't wear a bunch of jewellery and drive a unique car. If you're someone running a ponzi scheme, don't be a public troll, desperately seeking attention.

philwelch 5y ago

It's surprisingly easy to commit a federal offense: https://twitter.com/CrimeADay https://twitter.com/CrimeADay

defaultname 5y ago
There's always a logical fallacy in this sort of argument- a) There are loads of extremely specific laws for various very specific problems. e.g. Taking obsidian from an obsidian flow federal park, for instance. b) Ergo everyone commits crimes!. We're all criminals, they just selectively choose what to enforce! b) doesn't follow at all. The vast majority of people will never even be in a situation where it was possible to commit the overwhelming bulk of laws on the book. And that never would regardless. FWIW, criminals think everyone is a criminal. Tax evaders think it's just normal. Thieves think everyone steals. Etc.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  >"Ergo everyone commits crimes!. We're all criminals, they just selectively choose what to enforce!" I highly recommend watching "Don't Talk to the Police", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE for a different perspective of where the GP is coming from. While it is true the vast majority of the US Code is something that simply won't apply to you (like the obsidian example), there are plenty of laws on the books that are vague and subject to abuse by a motivated prosecutor. One such example is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which is a massive topic in-and-of-itself.
- salawat 5y ago
  >FWIW, criminals think everyone is a criminal. Tax evaders think it's just normal. Thieves think everyone steals. Etc... ...and law abiding folk think they never break the law. Ever lent someone money at 0% interest? Did you report it on your taxes? If not, you may technically be guilty of tax evasion. Ever binned someone else's junk mail? Welcome to mail tampering. There is a big difference between the law as written and the law as enforced. I guarantee you, if you go looking hard enough, there are some downright stupid laws on the books. Hell look at mask laws! It was a huge controversy in some places last year because minorities in jurisdictions with historical anti-face covering statutes we're damned if they did, damned if they didn't. Look at San Fran. The DA won't prosecute shoplifters, yet people walk out stores without paying under the statutory threshold. You going to try to say that the law makes even a lick of sense when you get degenerate circumstances? Or are you going to take refuge in "Well, only the laws that matter?" If we go down that road it only gets worse. How about... Mmmm. Jaywalking? Loitering? Noise violations that never got reported? Driving overweight vehicles down a road designed with weight capacity 1 ton less? Using an aerosol not perfectly in accordance with the instructions? Test driven an vehicle you didn't have registered on a public road? Improperly disposed of medication? Thrown a lithium ion battery in the garbage? Travelled with something in a trailer that qualifies as hazmat without getting a placard? Speeding? Had livestock escape, damage something, with no real dramatic outcome? Still infractions. Even if charges aren't pressed.
  - defaultname 5y ago
    "Look at San Fran. The DA won't prosecute shoplifters, yet people walk out stores without paying under the statutory threshold. You going to try to say that the law makes even a lick of sense when you get degenerate circumstances?" Let's just focus on this nugget- -the DA made no such claim -the threshold in San Francisco is actually LOWER than Texas. So much was made about that when people were truly clueless about what they claimed -in reality there are almost no prosecutions because the activist police force simply doesn't bother responding Police nationwide tend to be pretty far to the right (see the NYPD having a barely above 40% vaccination level right now as a good benchmark of that, which as an aside vaccination should absolutely be a requirement for their job), and they like to intentionally do a really shit job if it achieves their talking points. The guys rushing into stores and filling garbage bags? Yup, the police should be arresting them. That they don't has nothing to do with the DA.
- philwelch 5y ago
  Do people who make ad hominem comments on the internet think that everyone makes ad hominem comments on the internet?
  - defaultname 5y ago
    Not only was my comment in no way an ad hominem, it's pretty ironic that you attempt one to denigrate.
    - philwelch 5y ago
      Responding to "it's surprisingly easy to commit a federal offense" with "FWIW, criminals think everyone is a criminal" can be reasonably interpreted as an ad hominem. If that's not what you meant, what did you mean by that comment?
      - defaultname 5y ago
        It's a general comment relating to the general discussion of how law-breaking a peoples are. Maybe don't take every comment personally?
        philwelch 5y ago
        What makes you think I took it personally? I was just making a general comment about how people who make ad hominem comments on the internet are.

rchaud 5y ago

I wouldn't say it's post-Trump. Online discussion boards have long been home to armchair contrarianism. I will say that these days it's couched in "devil's advocate" and alarmist "your freedom is at stake!" type language. Or, in this case, temporarily embarrassed hedge fund managers that do not wish to have such a fate befall them.

kgantchev 5y ago

The "financial crimes" seem to have no victims since none of his investors actually sued him. If he really defrauded them, as the government claims in their successful lawsuit and conviction, then I'm pretty sure they would have sued him also. Why haven't his allegedly defrauded investors sued him? BTW, let me quote one of his investors, Lindsay Rosenwald: Rosenwald testified that in 2012, Shkreli told him he was winding down MSMB Capital. And Shkreli offered Rosenwald the opportunity to roll over what Shkreli purported was by then Rosenwald’s $200,000 stake in MSMB Capital into Retrophin, a new drug company he was creating. "I was given the option of taking the cash or taking the stock, I wanted the cash, I didn’t get the cash.” Rosenwald testified that he later, over time, sold off his shares of Retrophin. He said that, taking into account his original stake of $100,000 in MSMB Capital, he did make a profit on those stock sales. Asked how much, Rosenwald said, “Somewhere between $400,000 and $600,000, I think.”[1] Another investor "realized a profit of almost $1.3 million after selling Retrophin shares it had acquired as a result of a $125,000 initial investment by that fund, Hassan testified."[2] In short, Shkreli did lie to his investors because he lost their money in the failed hedge fund. However, when he made another business, he rolled their accounts into shares of that business which actually made them a pretty sizable profit. I guess in this Cancel Culture era, the pious feel justified in the destruction of anybody they don't like. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/06/martin-shkreli-kept-hedge-fund-investor-in-dark-about-botched-trade.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/06/martin-shkreli-kept-hedge-fu... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/29/investor-in-martin-shkreli-fund-felt-betrayed-by-pharma-bro.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/29/investor-in-martin-shkreli-f...

mypalmike 5y ago
Many ponzi scheme fraudsters roll over the dwindling investments, hoping to hit the big payday that lets them fulfill the promised returns to the investors. Unlike most, Shkreli got very lucky and found a successful exit.
defaultname 5y ago
>The "financial crimes" seem to have no victims since none of his investors actually sued him They were overt, literal, indisputable financial crimes. Not sure why you decided to scare-quote that. Making someone you defrauded whole again doesn't erase the crime. The notion that it would is ludicrous. >I guess in this Cancel Culture era Give it a rest. There is a truth that if you are a criminal you probably shouldn't draw attention to yourself. If you're a drug dealer, don't wear a bunch of jewellery and drive a unique car. If you're someone running a ponzi scheme, don't be a public troll, desperately seeking attention.