“…ORDER as to Martin Shkreli. The court grants defendant’s  request to file a reply to the government’s  opposition to defendant’s  motion to release his bond obligation, by September 30, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 9/20/2017.…”
So we will have to wait a tic here, for final resolution, on this issue. [End, updated portion.]
The ever-capable AUSAs have just now filed their letter brief opposing any release of the E*Trade account proceeds to Mr. Brafman’s firm.
That brief will almost certainly carry the day. Here are all three pages (as a compact PDF file) — and a bit:
…On December 17, 2015, the defendant was released on a $5 million bond which was to be secured by a lien on his assets. On January 7, 2016, the government, with the consent of the defendant, applied for the Restraining Order, which provided for a lien on assets in the defendant’s E*TRADE account, which at that time was represented to have a value of approximately $45 million….
In this case, the government respectfully requests, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2044, that the Restraining Order over the assets and funds in the defendant’s E*Trade account remain in place pending the defendant’s sentencing, because the Court may impose an assessment, fine, restitution and/or penalty as part of his sentence. As a result of his conviction, the defendant faces mandatory forfeiture, possible restitution liability, mandatory special assessments, as well as the potential to pay a fine.
Accordingly, the E*Trade account should remain under restraint so that the funds remain available to satisfy the defendant’s prospective financial obligations, especially considering that the defendant has previously represented to the Court that he has limited, illiquid assets beyond his holdings in the E*Trade account….
That’s a winner, in my opinion. The funds may well be used as fines and penalties, at sentencing (that is the judge’s call). They may also (as we’ve said) be turned over to the IRS or NY State taxing authorities, or awarded to his hundreds of civil victims.
But they certainly shouldn’t be turned over to Mr. Brafman’s control — until after that date — if there are no fines, or assessments, by the judge (not even remotely likely, given the nature of the convictions).
Now you know. And now we will await the able judge’s ruling, likely in a day or two.