It's true, his case is interesting in that there really was no victims. It was a victemless crime. Still a crime however.
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.
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).
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.