In good conscience, I cannot (yet) post the context for these below statements, since Mr. Greebel is still on felony criminal trial, in Brooklyn — and it is not (yet) completely clear that the able Judge Matsumoto will allow the AUSAs all they are asking here, by letter.
And so, obviously, I do not want to taint anyone’s jury. [The full letter will come in due time.]
That letter (which I will release here in full, after the verdict) was filed by the capable AUSAs overnight, on a Saturday, no less (all the more remarkable, since the trial was on hiatus on Friday) to counter some oddball lines of questioning by Mr. Greebel’s lawyers, on cross, when they do cross-examine the relevant MSMB investors (each of whom also testified at Marty’s trial). It seems the defense’s questioning (as was likewise attempted in Mr. Shkreli’s trial) will seek to misdirect the jury, and blame the fraud victims, as an escape hatch from criminal guilt here.
Here’s the portion that most fascinated me — about Marty — and strikes me as absolutely correct:
“…Moreover, although defense counsel in the Shkreli trial argued that investors profited from their investments, that argument was raised to show that Shkreli had acted in good faith and, as a result, lacked an intent to defraud the investors as charged in Counts One through Six, in which the investors were the victims. The argument was not offered to show Shkreli lacked intent to defraud Retrophin as charged in Count Seven, in which Retrophin was the victim….”
Note that no matter how one slices it, the company ultimately called Retrophin (and earlier known as Desert Gateway) saw its assets misappropriated by Marty (and, it is alleged, aided by the lawyer now on trial) — for essentially no benefit to that company, when Marty paid off his former MSMB investors — with Retrophin stock.
Namaste — and now, go back to bed all you copper-hued twisty long-legged divas orbiting Jupiter — as it’s an extra hour of shut eye for me, too… smile.