4 ms·

Still what she did was fraud. From the article - "Still, the judge criticized the bank, saying “they have a lot to blame themselves” for after failing to do ade

Still what she did was fraud. From the article - "Still, the judge criticized the bank, saying “they have a lot to blame themselves” for after failing to do adequate due diligence. He quickly added, though, that he was “punishing her conduct and not JPMorgan’s stupidity.” "

mothballed 1y ago
Not to justify it, but why isn't the founder of UPS (edit: Fedex) in prison? I don't think it was legal to go and literally spend their money at the casino. If you turn a profit no one cares (unless you're Shkreli, don't think his investors lost money, but he pissed off some politicians because he said the quiet parts out loud about how the pharma industry works), if you lose it's fraud. When all the winners are doing it, hard to compete otherwise... not that it makes it right.
- privatelypublic 1y ago
  What are you thinking the crime would be? He bet his company on a literal toss of the dice instead of the routine figurative ones. Outside of Bribery and ?SarBox? (Whichever regulation handles kickbacks, etc), I can't think of anything.
  - mothballed 1y ago
    If you spend investor money at a literal casino while advertising a non-casino related business, and pay the investors back, probably people will view you as not committing a crime. If you get investor money or get a loan on the basis of funding logistics investments, bet it on roulette red, and go bankrupt, I would expect you'd be looking at hard jail time for fraud. So I'm thinking the crime would be nothing, because he was a winner, and the optics totally changed, and fraud relies on very subjective opinions of a jury.
    - bryanlarsen 1y ago
      There are lots of examples of people going to jail despite investors getting their money back, like SBF and Shkreli. Even Madoff investors got 94% of their investments back.
      - mothballed 1y ago
        Shkreli is the only one of those 3 that fully paid back his investors, and it took him pissing off virtually every politician and a bunch of wealthy insurance executives/administrators to get enough resources mobilized to get a conviction (and being one of the most uncharismatic people on earth, which didn't help him at trial). I think you are definitely in a much worse place for a fraud conviction if you lose money.
        bryanlarsen 1y ago
        News stories said SBF investors were going to get 118% of their money back. Did that not happen? https://techcrunch.com/2024/05/08/ftx-crypto-fraud-victims-to-get-their-money-back-plus-interest/ https://techcrunch.com/2024/05/08/ftx-crypto-fraud-victims-t...
        mothballed 1y ago
        No because the assets ('money') deposited to SBF were crypto, and you just gamified it by doing a currency exchange to USD while disingenuously failing to note that in that time the USD value of the crypto went up. If you want an accurate reflection, note how much of the crypto deposited went in, and then how much came back out after SBF lost it. This would be like me depositing USD, someone stealing some of it, then you bragging the value went up because I have a larger quantity as measured in Venezuelan Bolivars. What actually happened is their % they recouped was less than 100 until you artificially change to an entirely different currency.
        bryanlarsen 1y ago
        Sure, if you believe crypto is a currency.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- potato3732842 1y ago
  > (unless you're Shkreli, don't think his investors lost money, but he pissed off some politicians because he said the quiet parts out loud about how the pharma industry works) What's the TL;DR? His wikipedia page doesn't make it obvious.
  - mothballed 1y ago
    Shkreli's schtick was to buy out or control pharma companies that had a monopoly and jack the everliving fuck out of the prices. He had some programs for uninsured people, but he would milk the insurance companies absolutely dry, which gave him some wild profits. This made a bunch of powerful people absolutely enraged, as he was basically publicly bragging about jacking the ever living fuck out of the prices. Pharma companies do this but Shkreli would publicly say it and tell the truth that basically the other companies were doing it while pretending to be good people, and he was only being honest about it. Poor people were pissed because they were told they couldn't get their drugs (I'm unaware if the program that allowed uninsured people to get them for cheap was real or not), and the rich insurance people pissed because he was basically he was bilking them. So they went back and discovered one or some of his other early enterprises weren't profitable, but that he had used money he made off his later pharma enterprises to pay back his earlier investors. In trial, his investors testified they were happy with the situation, lost no money, and would invest with him again. But they still convicted him for fraud, even despite the 'victims' themselves did not believe they were defrauded. It didn't help that Shkreli is probably one of the most profoundly unlikeable people you can possible listen to, unless you're not bothered to hear a hyper-capitalist be honest about how they do business.
    - potato3732842 1y ago
      Sounds like basically the big boy version of how all the other psychiatrists who run plausibly deniable pill mills will screech about the one running a flagrant pill mill until they lose their license.
    - notmyjob 1y ago
      Victims not wanting prosecution doesn’t absolve the perpetrator as wife beaters learn all the time. I also think Skhreli’s biggest mistake was threatening Hillary Clinton.
- 1123581321 1y ago
  There is truth to this. She was exposed because JP Morgan ran a marketing campaign that converted extremely poorly. Better purchased data might've prevented significant forensics. The poor due diligence had already been signed off. While she committed fraud, I feel sorry for her because of her naivety. It must've been a sick moment when they asked to examine the data during due diligence. If she'd known that would be used for marketing integration so quickly, maybe she would have backed out of the deal.
  - miltonlost 1y ago
    From the complaint: > In particular, CC-1 and JAVICE asked Engineer-1 to supplement a list of Frank’s website visitors with additional data fields containing synthetic data. > Engineer-1 was uncomfortable with the request and stated, in sum and substance, “I don’t want to do anything illegal.” JAVICE and CC-1 claimed to Engineer-1 that it was legal. JAVICE stated to Engineer-1, in sum and substance, “We don’t want to end up in orange jumpsuits.” Engineer-1 declined the request from JAVICE and CC-1. She's not naive. She was told this was illegal and then did it still. She knew this was fraud.
    - 1123581321 1y ago
      Yes, read the same. Naive in thinking she could get past that and they wouldn’t do anything particularly revealing with the data. A smarter fraudster would’ve backed out earlier with less damage.
  - IncreasePosts 1y ago
    She's so naive, she just hung around until someone found out the fraud. It made me wonder what she was thinking when her $30M share landed in her bank account. "Whee, I got away with it", "it's their problem now"? I don't think I would commit fraud, but if I did it for that amount, I would be on a flight to Malaysia or some other place with no extradition with the US!
- curiousObject 1y ago
  why isn't the founder of UPS in prison? I don't think it was legal to go and literally spend their money at the casino That was FedEx’s founder, Fred Smith. It wasn’t UPS He only had $5,000 of funds remaining, which he gambled playing blackjack, so the potential loss to investors was small. He’d already lost almost all their investments through operating FeDex
  - FireBeyond 1y ago
    The investors? At that point he had been stiffing his pilots on wages for weeks or months, and with many also paying fuel bills on their personal credit cards/checks, since many fuelers had canceled FedEx's accounts. Yeah, $5K isn't a whole lot, but if I'm a pilot struggling to put food on my family's table, and the CEO takes company money to Vegas, I'm not thinking "Oh, but the investors" or "Sure, it's not that much money anyway". I don't see why people (not saying you, in particular) see this as some heroic founder "risking it all". He wasn't. He was risking the company's "all", after asking the employees to suck up his mismanagement.
    - curiousObject 1y ago
      some heroic founder "risking it all". He wasn't. He was risking the company's "all", after asking the employees to suck up his mismanagement. I agree. He was asking employees not to cash their paychecks sometimes. $5000 is inconsequential compared to that forced investment from employees and business partners
    - red_rech 1y ago
      [dead]
- IncreasePosts 1y ago
  There's no knowledge as to whether he used company money, or personal cash/line of credit. In fact, there's no knowledge of the story is even true, apart from what one dead man wrote!

mothballed 1y ago

Not to justify it, but why isn't the founder of UPS (edit: Fedex) in prison? I don't think it was legal to go and literally spend their money at the casino. If you turn a profit no one cares (unless you're Shkreli, don't think his investors lost money, but he pissed off some politicians because he said the quiet parts out loud about how the pharma industry works), if you lose it's fraud. When all the winners are doing it, hard to compete otherwise... not that it makes it right.

privatelypublic 1y ago
What are you thinking the crime would be? He bet his company on a literal toss of the dice instead of the routine figurative ones. Outside of Bribery and ?SarBox? (Whichever regulation handles kickbacks, etc), I can't think of anything.
- mothballed 1y ago
  If you spend investor money at a literal casino while advertising a non-casino related business, and pay the investors back, probably people will view you as not committing a crime. If you get investor money or get a loan on the basis of funding logistics investments, bet it on roulette red, and go bankrupt, I would expect you'd be looking at hard jail time for fraud. So I'm thinking the crime would be nothing, because he was a winner, and the optics totally changed, and fraud relies on very subjective opinions of a jury.
  - bryanlarsen 1y ago
    There are lots of examples of people going to jail despite investors getting their money back, like SBF and Shkreli. Even Madoff investors got 94% of their investments back.
    - mothballed 1y ago
      Shkreli is the only one of those 3 that fully paid back his investors, and it took him pissing off virtually every politician and a bunch of wealthy insurance executives/administrators to get enough resources mobilized to get a conviction (and being one of the most uncharismatic people on earth, which didn't help him at trial). I think you are definitely in a much worse place for a fraud conviction if you lose money.
      - bryanlarsen 1y ago
        News stories said SBF investors were going to get 118% of their money back. Did that not happen? https://techcrunch.com/2024/05/08/ftx-crypto-fraud-victims-to-get-their-money-back-plus-interest/ https://techcrunch.com/2024/05/08/ftx-crypto-fraud-victims-t...
        mothballed 1y ago
        No because the assets ('money') deposited to SBF were crypto, and you just gamified it by doing a currency exchange to USD while disingenuously failing to note that in that time the USD value of the crypto went up. If you want an accurate reflection, note how much of the crypto deposited went in, and then how much came back out after SBF lost it. This would be like me depositing USD, someone stealing some of it, then you bragging the value went up because I have a larger quantity as measured in Venezuelan Bolivars. What actually happened is their % they recouped was less than 100 until you artificially change to an entirely different currency.
        bryanlarsen 1y ago
        Sure, if you believe crypto is a currency.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
potato3732842 1y ago
> (unless you're Shkreli, don't think his investors lost money, but he pissed off some politicians because he said the quiet parts out loud about how the pharma industry works) What's the TL;DR? His wikipedia page doesn't make it obvious.
- mothballed 1y ago
  Shkreli's schtick was to buy out or control pharma companies that had a monopoly and jack the everliving fuck out of the prices. He had some programs for uninsured people, but he would milk the insurance companies absolutely dry, which gave him some wild profits. This made a bunch of powerful people absolutely enraged, as he was basically publicly bragging about jacking the ever living fuck out of the prices. Pharma companies do this but Shkreli would publicly say it and tell the truth that basically the other companies were doing it while pretending to be good people, and he was only being honest about it. Poor people were pissed because they were told they couldn't get their drugs (I'm unaware if the program that allowed uninsured people to get them for cheap was real or not), and the rich insurance people pissed because he was basically he was bilking them. So they went back and discovered one or some of his other early enterprises weren't profitable, but that he had used money he made off his later pharma enterprises to pay back his earlier investors. In trial, his investors testified they were happy with the situation, lost no money, and would invest with him again. But they still convicted him for fraud, even despite the 'victims' themselves did not believe they were defrauded. It didn't help that Shkreli is probably one of the most profoundly unlikeable people you can possible listen to, unless you're not bothered to hear a hyper-capitalist be honest about how they do business.
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    Sounds like basically the big boy version of how all the other psychiatrists who run plausibly deniable pill mills will screech about the one running a flagrant pill mill until they lose their license.
  - notmyjob 1y ago
    Victims not wanting prosecution doesn’t absolve the perpetrator as wife beaters learn all the time. I also think Skhreli’s biggest mistake was threatening Hillary Clinton.
1123581321 1y ago
There is truth to this. She was exposed because JP Morgan ran a marketing campaign that converted extremely poorly. Better purchased data might've prevented significant forensics. The poor due diligence had already been signed off. While she committed fraud, I feel sorry for her because of her naivety. It must've been a sick moment when they asked to examine the data during due diligence. If she'd known that would be used for marketing integration so quickly, maybe she would have backed out of the deal.
- miltonlost 1y ago
  From the complaint: > In particular, CC-1 and JAVICE asked Engineer-1 to supplement a list of Frank’s website visitors with additional data fields containing synthetic data. > Engineer-1 was uncomfortable with the request and stated, in sum and substance, “I don’t want to do anything illegal.” JAVICE and CC-1 claimed to Engineer-1 that it was legal. JAVICE stated to Engineer-1, in sum and substance, “We don’t want to end up in orange jumpsuits.” Engineer-1 declined the request from JAVICE and CC-1. She's not naive. She was told this was illegal and then did it still. She knew this was fraud.
  - 1123581321 1y ago
    Yes, read the same. Naive in thinking she could get past that and they wouldn’t do anything particularly revealing with the data. A smarter fraudster would’ve backed out earlier with less damage.
- IncreasePosts 1y ago
  She's so naive, she just hung around until someone found out the fraud. It made me wonder what she was thinking when her $30M share landed in her bank account. "Whee, I got away with it", "it's their problem now"? I don't think I would commit fraud, but if I did it for that amount, I would be on a flight to Malaysia or some other place with no extradition with the US!
curiousObject 1y ago
why isn't the founder of UPS in prison? I don't think it was legal to go and literally spend their money at the casino That was FedEx’s founder, Fred Smith. It wasn’t UPS He only had $5,000 of funds remaining, which he gambled playing blackjack, so the potential loss to investors was small. He’d already lost almost all their investments through operating FeDex
- FireBeyond 1y ago
  The investors? At that point he had been stiffing his pilots on wages for weeks or months, and with many also paying fuel bills on their personal credit cards/checks, since many fuelers had canceled FedEx's accounts. Yeah, $5K isn't a whole lot, but if I'm a pilot struggling to put food on my family's table, and the CEO takes company money to Vegas, I'm not thinking "Oh, but the investors" or "Sure, it's not that much money anyway". I don't see why people (not saying you, in particular) see this as some heroic founder "risking it all". He wasn't. He was risking the company's "all", after asking the employees to suck up his mismanagement.
  - curiousObject 1y ago
    some heroic founder "risking it all". He wasn't. He was risking the company's "all", after asking the employees to suck up his mismanagement. I agree. He was asking employees not to cash their paychecks sometimes. $5000 is inconsequential compared to that forced investment from employees and business partners
  - red_rech 1y ago
    [dead]
IncreasePosts 1y ago
There's no knowledge as to whether he used company money, or personal cash/line of credit. In fact, there's no knowledge of the story is even true, apart from what one dead man wrote!