This seems really insane to me. He was convicted of financial fraud. Then afterwards he made a post on twitter, and now prosecutors can have him jailed for it and even forfeit millions of dollars in assets?
Even if you think the tweet about Hillary Clinton's hair was illegal harassment or instigation or whatever, surely the state should be required to prove that! Apparently if you have been convicted of some (completely unrelated) crime, you lose all due process rights and in the future the state can punish you arbitrarily much with no trial at all.
For certain cases, you don't have a right to trial by jury, such as bail revocation. And often it is decided on a preponderance of the evidence standard.
I don't know the specifics of bail revocation case law, but there are worse known cases, like contempt of court. Martin Armstrong was held for years, the All Writs act is being use as an anti-encryption measure, etc.
> The way this man has been treated is a disgrace to our judicial system and society.
This comment reminds me of something Popehat wrote about Aaron Swartz:
> In short, Swartz's team seemed to view this as an unjust and broken application of a system to an undeserving man, not recognizing that the system is rigged and unjust and broken from the start. That's common among smart, educated, fortunate people. As I have discussed before, my fortunate clients are the most outraged at how they are treated by the criminal justice system, and most prone to seeing conspiracies and vendettas, because they are new to it — they have not questioned the premise that the system's goal is justice. My clients who have lived difficult lives in hard neighborhoods don't see a conspiracy; they recognize incompetence and brutal indifference and injustice as features, not bugs.
Yes, they weren't trying to fix the Pharma gouging, they were trying to make it look like they fixed the Pharma gouging without hurting any of their donors.
And most of the news organizations bought it hook, line and sinker (ignorantly or willingly) because it sold advertisements.
You're right. The pharmaceutical exploitation that got the spotlight shined on him in the first place was reprehensible, to put it mildly.
But there are an awful lot of other crooks out there taking advantage of as many or more people, and often getting away with it with very little consequence.
I may not like him, but being dislikable shouldn't have that much effect on punishment.
> The pharmaceutical exploitation that got the spotlight shined on him in the first place was reprehensible, to put it mildly.
Can you explain why?
If you think it's immoral for the profit motive to be in play when it comes to healthcare, then fine. But to single him out like he's some kind of extreme amoral outlier or something seems really unfair.
Most people got the drug for free or at an extreme discount, and he spent all the profits on drug research. What he did is pretty much how the entire pharmaceutical industry works.
He’s an absolutely loathsome creature, up to and including the point where he put out a bounty for Hillary Clinton’s hair. (It’s just a joke, guys! C’mon! Just bros bein’ bros!)
But that’s the problem. You can’t really have rule of law and increase someone’s punishment because, well, they’re an asshole. The amount of legally-defined harm he caused is trivial. You can argue they’re putting every possible punishment they can on top because he was a dick who raised the price of drugs and is seemingly 4Chan incarnate.
(But oh man is that little pharma bro manlet so punchable. So, so punchable.)
I don't even find him to be particularly loathsome, really.
The thing is, Shkreli is a provocateur. He says and does things to elicit a reaction from people. He very clearly said one too many stupid things and as a result of it, they are throwing the book at him VERY hard here.
Whereas with someone else in his position, there probably would have been a quiet settlement for time served with little to no fines (as there are no real damages that I can see) there's literally no way that they can do that here. There are WAY too many eyes on this case for them to cut him a deal even if such a deal is de rigueur and that is 100% Shkreli's fault. He pushed and he pushed and he pushed till he built up so much bad karma that he literally ended up in jail. Even when he does things that, when you look into them REALLY deeply are perhaps good (like the Epi-Pen fiasco), he comes off 100% as an arrogant asshole who deserves condemnation anyway.
Funnily enough, I think his issue is he's too principled. He hadn't allowed himself to be silenced by people he rightfully viewed as misinformed or poorly motivated. He's very proud and stubborn, and it'd be dishonest to say he doesn't deserve it.
> I don't even find him to be particularly loathsome, really. The thing is, Shkreli is a provocateur. He says and does things to elicit a reaction from people.
I'd like to expand on my previous response: Saying things you don't believe for no better reason than that you enjoy pissing people off is loathsome. Whether or not he deserves jail time, he's still an asshole, and "provocateur" seems unnecessarily euphemistic.
>You can’t really have rule of law and increase someone’s punishment because, well, they’re an asshole
His punishment is not even known yet, the sentencing is not due for another seven weeks.
Perhaps you meant it more broadly, then where do you see injustice being done? Is the evidence made up? Was the jury rigged or unduly influenced? Was he deprived of legal counsel?
I'm not so sure. If a person has historically been an outstanding citizen, I think that it should be considered when judging someone. Otherwise, why not just have a single punishment with a predetermined timespan for every single conviction?
This is me half-heartedly playing devil’s advocate. I think a lot of other people have caused more harm, but they are going after him and his toys because he’s being such an obnoxious little shit.
But that’s a bit of a problem. You get one high-profile conviction of this rent-seeking troll, and not as much attention towards more systemically harmful actors. So, a bit of a “finite legal resources” model and a bit of “bread and circus”.
But it’s a half-argued argument. I’m glad to see financial engineering narcissists get karmic Justice.
The opposite is supposed to be a component of our judicial system, in that during sentencing leniency can be applied for people that have otherwise been good citizens/are actually apologetic about their crime. It has been thoroughly been abused in that aspect, especially when it comes to sentencing for similar crimes when there is simply a difference of race.
But in the case of people being uncooperative and showing no remorse the system was designed to be able to allow the judge to give them the maximum sentence. He did everything possible to ensure that outcome.
But, they're still a human being, even if they're terrible. Every person has intrinsic value and rights. I think we fool ourselves into thinking somehow we're morally superior to other people and you only own your rights if you're a 'good person'.
Honestly? If they can't legally prove the other stuff, then he shouldn't be prosecuted for it. Perverting justice in order to "catch the bad guy" is a terrible idea.
Is it? Seems fair to me that if you antagonize everyone under the sun, it comes back to bite you.
I would hate to live in a system that worked by the letter and just said "Well, can't touch him, he didn't TECHNICALLY break any laws...."
Like what if you had a stalker who wasn't TECHNICALLY violating any of the terms of his restraining order but was doing everything in their power to make your miserable anyway? Is it a disgrace for the law to find a way to stick it to them?
All of those people were jailed for their actions. Their actions were considered noble by a large number of people so there were multiple lawful and unlawful protests that brought pressure on the government to change the law.
> Yes, and it was BAD that those people were jailed.
In absolute terms, it was bad that those people were jailed, but with respect to the system, it was good that those people were jailed because it served to highlight the clear disconnect between the laws and what was right and wrong to society. It's unrealistic to expect institutions to make changes without going through the process. If Rosa Parks never went to jail there would have never been the protests which brought about change.
If you think the actions by Shkreli should have strong punishment, it's a bad thing if Shkreli gets the book thrown at him artificially. You're not setting precedent and you're not fixing the system. Someone in the future will do something similar and, depending on the court, they'll get off with a slap on the wrist. You should root for things to be done by the book so that everyone can realize, "hey, this book sucks!" and it gets changed through legislation.
After you see enough miserable, unrecognizable contortions of the law used as weapons by the powerful against the innocent in the name of spirit, you begin to appreciate why all the greatest judiciaries ultimately respect the written word.
Yes. If they aren't breaking the law, they aren't breaking the law. You don't get to bend Justice to a certain outcome because of a perceived social injustice.
I won't comment on his demeanor, I think we all feel the same way about his mannerisms.
I do hope he gets some sort of mistrial eventually. What happened is not justice, it's mob vengeance with biased judges and prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves. This reminds me so much of the Aaron Swartz "trial".
Missing from this article is this quote from his attorney:
> "We will vigorously oppose the government motion," Shkreli’s lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, said in an email. "Our position is clear. None of the investors lost any money and Martin did not personally benefit from any of the counts of conviction. Accordingly, forfeiture of any assets is not an appropriate remedy."
In short his hedge fund tanked, he started some new companies, retrospectively backdated the shareholding of the new company to make his loss making investors from the previous failure shareholders, that company ended up being successful and floated, those investors made a lot of money.
But everything about what he did to make that possible is entirely dodgy/illegal.
Since Shkrelli made his investors whole by fraudulently putting more of his own money into the fund, are the investors then on the hook for paying back the money that Shkrelli 'stole' from himself?
Not to you but to the person you stole it from, yes. The underlying legal principle being that though you had the item, you never had the legal control of its ownership, and thus although you transferred the item the original owner retained legal control of it.
Intuitively I'd think it's different for cash and goods. A stolen TV used in a barter transaction show of be returned. A dollar bill probably not. But 100k cash? Grey area? if you accept a dollar you can't reasonably be expected to do due diligence on it. But a large sum maybe.
America is based on common law. It is a pretty cool concept. Law was built up out of what peoples' customs and shared moral conventions were when a judge or jury made a judgement in trials between people. From English tradition. Most counties not descended from English law have this tradition. Law statues passed by governments overlay this older system.
That I dunno. If no one has been left out of pocket, one could argue that there is nothing to return. Who or what are they compensating if no party suffered a material loss?
If it was true that both no one was unjustly deprived and Shkreli had no direct or indirect gains (gross, not net of, say, separate criminal acts with offsetting effects taken together) for any of the individual crimes he was convicted of, it would seem to be accurate that the standards of the criminal forfeiture statute would not be met.
OTOH, that doesn't actually seem likely to be true.
Right. Society saying fraud is illegal with minor consequences, is an invitation to commit fraud. What I don't like is how disproportionate the DOJ is with individuals vs big companies. Shkreli will get fined into oblivion, the equivalent for the tobacco, sugar, and personal credit agencies would be cutting them in half, or maybe even their destruction.
That's my point. Individuals committing fraud, few or not people hurt and they throw the book at you and take all your stuff. Whereas these big corporate wrong doings that have very negatively impacted people's lives pretty much get a yawn.
His lawyer is very careful in his statements not to say that.
Investors in Retrophin made a lot money. They would have made more if Shkreli had not committed fraud. His lawyer’s argument is basically that the investors made money and it doesn’t matter that Shkreli used the company as his piggy bank, issuing shares, thus diluting investors, and writing checks to settle his debts and make whole the investors in his previous hedge fund.
There were victims. Victims who made a lot of money, but would have made more if Shkreli hadn’t committed fraud.
Yes, but he wasn't convicted of fraud against his Retrophin investors, he was convicted of fraud against his previous investors (the ones he paid with Retrophin money). So it's peculiar to use the Retrophin investors as justification for seizing his assets.
> I guess its closer to stealing from the register and leaving a lottery ticket that happen to be a winner.
Yes, this is a better analogy.
> Still seems perfectly convictable to me.
The question, though, isn't whether he should go to jail; I think he should. It's whether he should lose his assets to the government (I think he shouldn't).
Compensation for the psychological harm you've caused the teller as well as the law enforcement resources who were dispatched to the scene? Whether I'm right or wrong is irrelevant... at a certain point, these tangents don't contribute much to the top level case
If I slam on my brakes while driving on the freeway, throw my car into reverse, and manage to get home without hitting anyone, I’ve still broken the law. I think we want to sanction dangerous behavior regardless of outcome. That Shkreli didn’t lose his investors’ money is luck and should have nothing to do with his punishment for doing something that could well have lost people money.
Its something like this. Say a person burnt his house, the house is razed to ashes. There is nobody killed, nobody injured or let's say nobody was even present at home.
The house was insured, but the owner doesn't claim insurance either.
Despite all this. No insurance scam and no harm to anybody. But still the guy setting fire to his own home will considered a arsonist.
I have been following this for a while and was always amused that no one lost money. The actual witness the prosecution brought forward made money. It's why I believe this whole affair is for Public Consumption. They need to hang someone and he became a target. It didn't help that he couldn't just let his lawyer handle everything. He would have probably avoided jail and payed a small fine.
Attempted murder is still a crime, even if no one was hurt. Similarly, fraud is still a crime even if no one lost money.
The purpose of the law is to discourage situations that were deemed likely to yield harm, regardless of whether the victims lucked out this particular time.
Consider a drunk cab driver for example. No one is hurt, and the passenger is home in one piece. Still should be a crime, no?
I think much of the discomfort comes from the fact that white collar crime typically goes unpunished. (How many CEOs went to jail after the financial crisis?) There is the perception, warranted or not, that Shkreli was prosecuted simply because he stands out, which would be unjust.
Interesting point. I think his punhishments may be just, the real injustice is that other white collar criminals are not punished with the same tenacity as Shkrelli.
It seems at best dubious to claim that the frauds which funded the company of which Shkreli was CEO did not personally benefit Shkreli, directly or indirectly, so I'd say on first impression it doesn't seem likely to be accurate (it may be legitimate as an argument in the sense of not being an interpretation entirely ruled out by the evidence, however.)
I only became familiar with Martin Shkreli's story a only few days ago, yet it has become my main example that I'll point out when talking about:
- corrupt media and fake news
- corrupt populist people in power
- political witch hunts
- public that is trivial to mislead
You can easily verify the claims made by the media and the claims made by him and see exactly who is right and who is wrong, there is no moral grey area.
I think currently he is in Jail, but I followed him a bit on YouTube where he said, that he is contractually obligated not to release it for 88 years (for Wu Tang Clan album).
One of the reason Wu Tang et al. released these limited edition albums was they hoped they would be bought by art museums or so, in this case ended up with private collector.
Let's say the government gets it, auctions it, you (legally) purchase it (at that auction), and are now the owner.
While you wouldn't be bound by any agreements that Shkreli had w/ Wu-Tang Clan, you would still be in violation of copyright laws if you released it publicly (and the government could, potentially, put stipulations on its sale if they wanted).
In addition, if you owned the only existing copy, I think it would be pretty easy to prove that it was you who released it.
Contractually, the purchaser is not allowed to release it "commercially" which means they could release it for free. It has nothing to do with any copyright laws.
>"There are strict limitations on the distribution of the 31-track double album, with a statement from the band reading: "It can be exhibited publicly and it can be given away for free. But it cannot be commercialised as a conventional album release until 2103"[1]
> Contractually, the purchaser is not allowed to release it "commercially" which means they could release it for free. It has nothing to do with any copyright laws.
Someone who buys it from a government auction is not bound by any contract signed by the original purchaser. They are still bound by copyright law, although the copyright holder (presumably Wu-Tang Clan) could (and likely would) allow them to exhibit it or give it away.
It seems likely that the government would auction it off if they did take it. Clearly they're aware of its value, and there's no benefit from sticking it in a secret vault next to the Ark of the Covenant (as cool as that would be).
Whatever he is going to be convicted of, they're going to throw the book at him. He's a terrible person and an opportunist.
The problem is he is not the only one like this. In an interview with Vice he goes over the fact that what he did is common practice[0]. Until there is some way to stop this price gauging there will be more people like him.
Even if you think the tweet about Hillary Clinton's hair was illegal harassment or instigation or whatever, surely the state should be required to prove that! Apparently if you have been convicted of some (completely unrelated) crime, you lose all due process rights and in the future the state can punish you arbitrarily much with no trial at all.