[U] He Was NEVER Going To Beat Count 8 — AND THAT WILL COST HIM… 10 YEARS!

UPDATED: Here is my completed Quiz, as a full color hand written PDF, from this morning — per Billy — and you may use it as an answer key. You’re welcome! Hah! [End, update.]

I won’t unduly belabor it — there is plenty here to give him more than ten — but Judge Matsumoto will say truthfully he has no prior violent offenses.

He was astonishingly flagrant — in his violation of the law, under Count 8 — so I predict he gets ten for that one alone.

They say you can tell when justice has been done: “justice… they say, is when everyone feels just a little uncomfortable.” I think that is apt at the moment, all the way around.

By the way — Mr. Shkreli just had his ass handed to him, by the GIRLS’ [Grrrrl POWER!] Junior Varsity. Hilarious — in. his. own. words.

More soon. [Billy has lots of graphics, for future posts — as we hear about a sentencing date.]



147 thoughts on “[U] He Was NEVER Going To Beat Count 8 — AND THAT WILL COST HIM… 10 YEARS!

    • condor says:

      Thanks David. “Relevant conduct” under the sentencing guidelines does not stop at the US shoreline.

      I think that is why we are discussing it.

      And to the extent Turing sells or seeks approval to sell any drug or device or biologic in the US — it is subject to US jurisdiction and US FDA rules.

      Selling here also brings the US Sherman and Clayton Acts, and related rules (antitrust) to bear.

      Namaste — and do stop back!

      MSM is always welcome here!


      • condor says:

        His US assets may be seized to the extent that the tax man can prove he’s been hiding his cash in Switzerland.

        He claimed $100 million, there. I think that’s a drunken lie. But now the government can demand answers, under oath — or presume it is true, for sentencing purposes.

        MSM? Oh… nothing. I must be mistaken…



  1. R West says:

    I can’t believe how complex this case is and how hard it is to analyze when one doesn’t put a lot of time into it. First, a complex set of facts; then a complex indictment; then the jury instructions; then the case law on securities fraud; then a maze of federal sentencing statutes; then the complex sentencing guidelines; then the case law that interprets the sentencing statutes. There’s a lot to digest here … at some point, I think Brafman’s firm was overwhelmed … they apparently aren’t securities experts and it’s a small firm. The Gov’t does securities fraud all the time and they have more resources. What I learned is, one has to get the facts right first. Seems pretty fundamental, but can’t learn it too well!


    • R West says:

      BTW It’s a maze of federal sentencing statutes, but I think now that John Galt was right … Count 8, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, is five years max. But the Gov’t went to a lot of trouble to put it on, because it’s more likely to run consecutively to the securities fraud sentence. Looking at some other cases total sentence might be more like five – seven years. Litvak got 2 years for one securities fraud conviction; so three convictions could be six years. But it’s hard to tell … Judge has a lot of discretion, but she’s not known as being lenient!

      Liked by 1 person

  2. billythekid9919 says:

    Condor, I know you don’t want to watch… But he gave an interview right after getting home and live streamed it. The audio doesn’t match up but start at around 11:00:00 and he’s talking about “how much time would you do for $100MM. Then he claims he made that in the last 5 years AND CLIAMS IT’S HIDDEN OVERSEAS!!!!!

    Liked by 1 person

    • condor says:

      The sentencing guidelines allow (where the losses cannot reasonably be fully estimated)… the court may use illicit gains. He is an idiot for saying that.

      Even so, it’s likely just nonsense trolling — and false.

      But let’s hope the AUSAs are reading tonight, here.

      It belongs in his pre-sentencing report.

      And let him try to convince the able judge he was simply…. lying/joking, again.

      Charming — and thanks man!

      Liked by 1 person

    • bmartinmd says:

      Wow, someone needs to download this clip for preservation. Not only does Shkreli fail to maintain his hypothetical, he discusses communications with his attorney (arguably nullifying his attorney-client privilege) and essentially admits to squirreling away $100 million pre-tax dollars overseas. Where did this money come from? The SEC and the IRS might be very curious.

      If true, this means Shkreli might also be a serious flight risk, provided that he can get out of the country without a legitimate passport. His lawyers probably feel (and have long felt) that they can’t get rid of him quickly enough — just as soon as they get paid by Retrophin and/or by Shkreli with a portion of his alleged $100 mil. Then it’s AMFYOYO.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.