‘Pharma Bro’ sentenced to 7 years in jail for fraud

MARTIN Shrkeli, the smirking “Pharma Bro” vilified for jacking up the price of a lifesaving drug, was sentenced on Friday to seven years in prison for defrauding investors in two failed hedge funds.
The self-promoting pharmaceutical executive notorious for trolling critics online was convicted in a securities fraud case last year unconnected to the price increase dispute.
Shkreli, his cocky persona nowhere to be found, cried as he told U.S. District Judge Kiyo Matsumoto he made many mistakes and apologised to investors. “I want the people who came here today to support me to understand one thing, the only person to blame for me being here today is me,” he said. “I took down Martin Shkreli.” He said that he hopes to make amends and learn from his mistakes and apologised to his investors.
“I am terribly sorry I lost your trust,” he said. “You deserve far better.”
The judge insisted that the punishment was not about Shkreli’s online antics or raising the cost of the drug.
“This case is not about Mr Shkreli’s self-cultivated public persona ... nor his controversial statements about politics or culture,” the judge said, calling his crimes serious.
He was also fined $75,000 and received credit for the roughly six months he has been in prison.

The judge ruled earlier this week that Shkreli would have to forfeit more than $7.3 million in a brokerage account and personal assets including his one-of-a- kind Wu-Tang Clan album that he boasted he bought for $2 million. The judge said the property would not be seized until Shkreli had a chance to appeal. Prosecutors argued that the 34-year-old was a master manipulator who conned wealthy investors and deserved 15 years in prison. His lawyers said he was a misunderstood eccentric who used unconventional means to make those same investors even wealthier.
Lawyer Benjamin Brafman told Matsumoto on Friday that he sometimes wants to hug Shkreli and sometimes wants to punch him in the face, but he said his outspokenness shouldn’t be held against him. He said he deserved a sentence of 18 months or less because the investors got their money back and more from stock he gave them in a successful drug company.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jacquelyn Kasulis said Shkreli deserved the stiffer sentence not because he is “the most hated man in America,” but because he is a criminal convicted of serious fraud. She said the judge had to consider his history and said he has “no respect whatsoever” for the law, or the court proceedings.
“I also want to make clear that Mr. Shkreli is not a child,” Kasulis said. “He’s not a teenager who just needs some mentoring. He is a man who needs to take responsibility for his actions.” Unapologetic from the beginning, when he was roundly publicly criticised for defending the 5,000 per cent price increase of Daraprim, a previously cheap drug used to treat HIV, Shkreli seemed to drift through his criminal case as if it was one big joke.


More at source
http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/pharma-bro-martin-shkreli-sentenced-to-7-years-in-jail-for-fraud/news-story/d6cc44f3d713485ec48c7d4cd2601481

Original Quill wrote:Justice!!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Justice!!

Are you saying that because you feel sorry for the people who invested in his funds and didn't lose money, or because of the drug price-hike issue? You do know that the latter wasn't illegal don't you?

Raggamuffin wrote:Wow! I actually didn't expect him to get that long because nobody actually lost money. I shall miss his shenanigans on the stock market.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Wow! I actually didn't expect him to get that long because nobody actually lost money. I shall miss his shenanigans on the stock market.

No one lost money, Raggs...just lives and health.  

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Justice!!

Are you saying that because you feel sorry for the people who invested in his funds and didn't lose money, or because of the drug price-hike issue? You do know that the latter wasn't illegal don't you?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you saying that because you feel sorry for the people who invested in his funds and didn't lose money, or because of the drug price-hike issue? You do know that the latter wasn't illegal don't you?

I'm saying it's unconscionable to truck and barter in lives and health.  It's really no different than trading in body parts.  They shouldn't be distributed through the capitalist market, nor should they be wagered as in insurance schemes.

As far as what is legal, legislation is the end of the law-making process.  Citizens must state what they feel is unconscionable so that legislators know what laws to write.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm saying it's unconscionable to truck and barter in lives and health.  It's really no different than trading in body parts.  They shouldn't be distributed through the capitalist market, nor should they be wagered as in insurance schemes.

As far as what is legal, legislation is the end of the law-making process.  Citizens must state what they feel is unconscionable so that legislators know what laws to write.

You agree then that when you said "justice", you're not actually referring to the fraud issue and the trial, you're talking about the Daraprim issue. In other words, you mean a moral justice.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You agree then that when you said "justice", you're not actually referring to the fraud issue and the trial, you're talking about the Daraprim issue. In other words, you mean a moral justice.

Yes, Shrkeli was a bit player in a system that needs condemning. He's more of an prototype.  I don't mind including  him in the condemnation because, as a player in the system he's as guilty as the system.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, Shrkeli was a bit player in a system that needs condemning. He's more of an prototype.  I don't mind including  him in the condemnation because, as a player in the system he's as guilty as the system.

It's strange that no other pharma company had any interest in Daraprim isn't it? It's not under patent so they could have developed an alternative before Turin bought the marketing rights, but they didn't. The best way to keep the price of a drug down is to develop an alternative, yes?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's strange that no other pharma company had any interest in Daraprim isn't it? It's not under patent so they could have developed an alternative before Turin bought the marketing rights, but they didn't. The best way to keep the price of a drug down is to develop an alternative, yes?

I think you are touching upon the social discomfort with which society in general approaches AIDS.  That...and the limited market.

All the more reason why some central agency should be manufacturing/providing it...and, indeed, all pharmaceuticals.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think you are touching upon the social discomfort with which society in general approaches AIDS.  That...and the limited market.

All the more reason why some central agency should be manufacturing/providing it...and, indeed, all pharmaceuticals.

Daraprim isn't specifically a drug for an AIDS, it's just perceived that way because of the way the press reported the incident.