> "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."
Anyone here know if this position is legitimate?
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-12-17/martin-sh...
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.
So they don't actually care about compensation, they just have the right and want him to bleed.
The US government is attempting to make an example out of Shkreli.
OTOH, that doesn't actually seem likely to be true.
Anyone go to jail at Equifax? Most definitely not, and that’s upended the credit system.
I wouldn't put it past the credit industry to find a way to profit at further cost to consumers.
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.
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.
If you knock over a liquor store and the register is empty, seems to me its still a crime even if you didn't make off with anything.
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).
Ayup. If they don't hang him, they might have to go after somebody actually important in the pharmaceutical industry.
> It didn't help that he couldn't just let his lawyer handle everything.
Shkreli seems to be just absolutely, preternaturally unable to shut the fuck up.
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?