Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday March 11 2018, @08:23PM   Printer-friendly
from the what-a-shame dept.

It's 7 Years in Prison for Martin Shkreli, Convicted of Fraud

A federal judge sentenced former pharmaceutical executive and hedge-fund manager Martin Shkreli to seven years in prison Friday following his earlier conviction on three of eight counts of securities and wire fraud charges.

According to reporters present in the Brooklyn courtroom, Shkreli gave an emotional and tearful speech prior to his sentencing, taking blame and responsibility for his actions and saying he had changed as a person since his conviction. US District Judge Kiyo Matsumoto reportedly handed him a box of tissues and took a lengthy amount of time reviewing his transgressions and history.

The sentencing caps a long, public saga for Shkreli, who is widely reviled for drastically raising the price of a cheap, decades-old drug, as well as provocative and offensive online antics, including harassing women.

Obligatory Nelson HaHa

Source: ArsTechnica

Sobbing "Pharma Bro" Martin Shkreli Sentenced to 7 Years in Prison for Defrauding Investors

KSWB-TV reports

He was convicted on August 5, 2017 of securities fraud and conspiracy in what prosecutors said amounted to a Ponzi scheme. Shkreli called the charges "a witch hunt of epic proportions".

During his sentencing on Friday in Brooklyn federal court, Shkreli, 34, broke into tears and pleaded with the judge for leniency.

"I look back and I'm embarrassed and ashamed", he told the court. "I am terribly sorry", he said to his investors, "I lost your trust."

At his trial last year, Shkreli often wore a smirk and was chastised by the judge for his behavior, including for an incident in which he told reporters that the prosecutors on the case were "junior varsity". He also ignored the advice of his lawyer by commenting on the trial via social media and YouTube.

More coverage from:


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 11 2018, @09:11PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 11 2018, @09:11PM (#651074)

    That's fake news, Duca tweeted disparaging comments with a photo she took of Shkreli at a public bar. Shkreli responded by mocking her, including the DM invite and photoshopping himself into an image from her twitter profile. I thought it amusing but the official narrative is that he "harassed" her and it is wrong. In fact it's the reverse, Duca played the victim card to bully him off twitter.

    Shkreli is enough of an asshole without accusing him of stuff he didn't do!

  • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Sunday March 11 2018, @10:56PM (5 children)

    by vux984 (5045) on Sunday March 11 2018, @10:56PM (#651106)

    How does anything you said, 'make it fake news' ?

    Even if we take this at face value, "Duca tweeted disparaging comments with a photo she took of Shkreli at a public bar."
    So what? A single photo of a celebrity with a disparaging comment is definitely not 'harassment'.

    What Shkreli did in response was harassment.

    "Duca played the victim card" by being the victim? Yeah, God forbid people who are victimized complain about it.

    You seem to be arguing that the victim deserved it because... reasons. wtf?

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 11 2018, @11:23PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 11 2018, @11:23PM (#651112)

      So what? A single photo of a celebrity with a disparaging comment is definitely not 'harassment'.

      Really? What possible reason did Lauren Duca have for tweeting this? [twitter.com] Nothing creepy about that at all? Man visits restaurant - SO. FUCKING. WHAT?

      Is there a public interest reason for a journalist tweeting that picture along with the subjects location? The only one I can think of is that Martin Shkreli is universally reviled and undoubtedly the recipient of communications that would constitute threats against the person. As if taking targeted creep shots of individuals in the public eye and posting them to social media does not constitute stalking and harassment?

      To suggest that this [twimg.com] is anything other than mockery and humor is completely ridiculous. It's as ridiculous as pretending that Lauren Duca is the victim and not the bad actor here, which by comparison with Shkreli is quite the achievement!

      After his performance in front of the house committee, the state were obviously going to make an example of Shkreli. Lauren Duca's contribution did the impossible and humanised him.

      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday March 12 2018, @12:58AM (1 child)

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday March 12 2018, @12:58AM (#651145)

        After his performance in front of the house committee, the state were obviously going to make an example of Shkreli.

        Sorry for the ignorance, but can you remind us what happened here? I haven't been following the Shkreli news that well.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 12 2018, @01:14AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 12 2018, @01:14AM (#651158)

          Sorry for the ignorance, but can you remind us what happened here? I haven't been following the Shkreli news that well.

          Here's the smirking, narcissistic asshole Edited [youtube.com] and in full [youtube.com]

          For good measure, although you didn't ask - "Ratchet the vortex to new heights". [youtube.com] By "vortex", I mean playing the victim whenever her crappy and obnoxious views and behaviour are challenged.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Magic Oddball on Monday March 12 2018, @04:51AM (1 child)

        by Magic Oddball (3847) on Monday March 12 2018, @04:51AM (#651199) Journal

        I'm not active on social media sites, but as far as I'm aware, it's pretty normal to make a post along the lines of "I'm at [restaurant/store] and [celebrity] just came in" with a hastily-snapped picture. Similarly, as brain-damaged as it makes her sound, the "don't/can't even" line is pretty standard. If she'd had a pattern of doing things like that to him, then that would've been creepy…but she didn't.

        In contrast, Shkreli DMed her suggesting she go to the Inauguration with him to be obnoxious, called her a "cold bitch" when she turned him down, changed his profile picture to an image that depicted him sitting with her in place of her husband, posted an entire collage of images of her with the caption “For better or worse, ’til death do us part, I love you with every single beat of my heart”, and changed his bio to include “small crush on @laurenduca (hope she doesn’t find out).” He was basically engaging in creepy pseudo–stalker behavior to harass her for her one vapid Tweet.

        Yet you figure that "humanised him"... So here's my question: if he'd posted a single photo of her he'd just taken with the same kind of vapid comment (to be fair, I think he'd sound a bit more intelligent), and she proceeded to ask him out to be obnoxious, called him a cold bastard when he refused, posted a photo of him sitting next to one of his girlfriends with her face posted over his GF's, then a whole collage of different images with him referencing "’til death do us part" and changed her bio to comment on having a crush on him, would you feel she was in the right?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 12 2018, @11:32AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 12 2018, @11:32AM (#651296)

          it's pretty normal to make a post along the lines of "I'm at [restaurant/store] and [celebrity] just came in" with a hastily-snapped picture.

          Being somewhat common does not make it "normal" or okay. The question is if there an expectation of privacy when a "celebrity" is in a public setting like a bar or restaurant. If one person followed you around all day taking pictures and posting them to twitter whenever you were in a public setting, it'd be clear stalking and harassment. Is it really any different, less creepy or over the line if multiple people are doing it? What possible motive could there be for engaging in this behaviour?

          would you feel she was in the right?

          I'd think she was mocking him, that she was joking.