Hilarious! Shkreli Forfeiture Motion Now Public!

UPDATED: 12.03.17 @ 7 PM EST — Another letter brief — filed late Sunday night; and still no decision on a defense case in chief, in Mr. Greebel’s trial. So the case could go to the jury yet this week — or it might be two more weeks (if an extensive defense case is offered). [End, updated portion.]

The whole of the cogent AUSAs’ motion by letter is here, right on schedule.

But I think these portions are particularly delicious:

Specifically, the following substitute assets owned by Shkreli have, to date, been identified and now that Shkreli has been convicted, the Court should direct that they be forfeited to the United States in partial satisfaction of his forfeiture money judgment: (a) $5 million in cash that is currently held in an E*Trade brokerage account ending in the digits “0258” as security for Shkreli’s bond, pursuant to orders of the Court dated January 7, 2016, August 24, 2016 and October 19, 2017; (b) Shkreli’s interest in and the monetary value of any and all shares held in an entity called Turing Pharmaceuticals; (c) the album “Once Upon a Time in Shaolin” by the Wu Tang Clan, as well as any proceeds derived from the sale of such album; (d) the album “The Carter V” by Lil Wayne, as well as any proceeds derived from the sale of such album; (e) an Enigma machine, as well as any proceeds derived from the sale of such machine; and (f) a Picasso painting, as well as any proceeds derived from the sale of such painting. See Declaration at ¶ 11. (hereinafter “the Substitute Assets”)….

All the assets we’ve been tracking, indeed. And there is a credible concern about any or all of  them… disappearing, if not seized. Smile.

And I am similarly grinning widely, as Mike Flynn flips, in federal court this morning. It is beginning to look a lot like… Christmas. Enjoy — one and all!

In a side note, I simply have to remark that Christie Smythe’s reactionary “advice by tweet” this morning is as feckless and uninformed as any I’ve ever seen — from her. [But she must curry favor, to preserve book interview/access meetings.] And as she so often reminds (also by tweet), she well-knows what really happened, so she cannot say — with a straight face — that Marty was in any manner railroaded by the AUSAs. Here is her advice (such as it is) to hedge fund runners (odious as it comes):

“…Lesson to hedge fund founders: Don’t strain yourself coming up with “creative” strategies to pay back investors you defrauded. The government will come after it anyway. Even if you’re successful….”

Better advice? Don’t defraud your investors in the first place. As though paying it back somehow makes it NOT a felony?! Whatever, dude.



33 thoughts on “Hilarious! Shkreli Forfeiture Motion Now Public!

  1. R West says:

    Jury consultant will probably tell Greebel’s team not to put up a defense due to Christmas. Two theories: (1) Closer it gets to Christmas, jury will be more sympathetic. That would favor drawing it out and setting the jury up to deliberate closer to Christmas. (2) Other theory is, people are busy before Christmas and they will be mad defendant drew it out. There are some articles on Christmas jury strategy. One lawyer said in another December case: `I think jurors would be annoyed that they have to sit in a trial when they`ve got a million other things to be doing,“ …“They could get mad at the defendant for taking up their time.“ I think the defense will go with the latter … and just in closing say “send him home to his family” and throw in “for the holidays.” Actually, I can see the AUSA’s filing a motion before the closing to get an Order you can’t mention the holidays … but I think they will be allowed to say it. The defense probably doesn’t have much of a defense anyway … so I bet they rest now and go with “we’re going to send everyone home for the holidays.” Actually, there’s a very similar Boston Legal episode where the DA mentioned Christmas … and Brad Chase whispered to Denise (played by Julie Bowen) … “don’t let them (the DA) have Christmas!”

    Liked by 1 person

  2. R West says:

    Forfeiture amount tells you where Gov’t. is going with this … if loss was $7 million, that’s +18 points on the sentencing guidelines. Add in the other points, and Martin is probably heading towards a 7-year sentence.

    Liked by 1 person

    • condor says:

      Yes — that’s establishing the base calculation… but remember that the able Judge now has LOTS of extra, uncharged relevant conduct… not least of which involves national security, in addition to financial fraud and threats of physical assaults.

      You know my view: that’s 120 months.

      Great stuff on your part!



    • condor says:

      Yes. I am reading a letter filed by Mr. Reed Brodsky now — he’s Mr. Greebel’s lead defense counsel. It recites a reference to some 65 documents that Greebel might use – IF he decides to put on a defense.

      But Mr. Brodsky concludes by saying the defense team won’t decide on that — until the prosecution rests its case in chief.

      No other documents have been made public as of 3 PM EST on Saturday.



  3. R West says:

    All the online followers and cheerleading is probably going to hurt Martin at sentencing. Judge is going to want to put him away long enough that he won’t come back as an investment guru with a big following … sort of like that Kevin Trudeau guy … they just think of ways to get around any kind of industry ban!

    Liked by 2 people

  4. condor says:

    I now see that Ms. Smythe reached out to Marty for a comment on the forfeiture motion:

    … “my first priority in defending forfeiture is trashy

    #2 is financial assets. they have no rational claim to them.”

    — comment from Martin #Shkreli….

    Of course, trashy is his cat. Faux-charming.

    Marty apparently doesn’t understand the law applicable to “fruits of a crime”.

    The Enigma, the Wu- and Weezie cuts were all acquired AFTER his MSMB frauds… I think the Picasso was, as well.

    “Rational” is the wrong test. The law supplies the rationale here. The likely only carve out is in favor of Mr. Brafman’s attorneys’ lien. But none of it will stay with Marty, now — to a near certainty.

    We await Brafman’s filing.


    Liked by 1 person

    • FTD says:

      They are going to take everything & if he continues acting up in the cell, the guards will put him in isolation. I don’t understand why someone thinks they can clown & be silly. If only Martin had a circle of people that just said “No, you aren’t going to do that. I’m done with you if you do that”

      Liked by 1 person

    • condor says:

      My later thoughts on Flynn are here — see that link at another property of mine. Prosecutors know how much trouble 45 is now in. Trust that.

      The RT piece lacks the perspective of an actual prosecutor. Flynn Sr. has apparently said 45 directed his Logan Act violations.

      Was Nixon a soft coup d’état? No. Nixon committed crimes.

      So, too (it will soon become apparent) has… 45.

      The soft one count plea — to a process crime — is a form of payment, true… for truthful testimony about far more disturbing crimes… likely by 45 hisself.

      Do recall that (sublimely ironic, now) it was Flynn who led the GOP conventioneers from the podium in chants of “lock her up!” — in Detroit, in Summer 2016. At one point 45 had considered him as a VP running mate. This was no bit player.

      This guy knows all the dirt. And he’s singing like a canary, starting right now.

      Bub bye Jared. Bub bye Don Jr. — and Bub bye… 45.



      • condor says:

        I liked your comment to highlight its… general lack of comprehension of the meaning of our discussions here.


        (1) The Logan Act applies to attempts to engage foreign powers AGAINST a clearly-stated US policy position (that’s a five year stint felony, BTW). HRC was talking IN FAVOR of TPP — at BHO’s behest on a treaty President Obama broadly SUPPORTED. She was doing 44 a favor, as a (by then) former Administration Sec. of State. She was on 44’s team, silly.

        (2) Prime Minister Abe is a close ally of the US. Vladimir Putin? Not so much.

        (3) Manafort, and now Flynn (and apparently — Jared and 45) were (it seems) working with agents of HOSTILE foreign powers — precisely to UNDERMINE 44’s stated policies and official sanctions. BHO was still the President of the United States when these events took place.

        I know it’s tedious to actually read, and look at dates — but do try to keep up.

        Liked by 1 person

      • aldt440 says:

        She flip flopped all over the place on the TPP. Hostile is an ambiguous term and I have yet to see proof of Russian interference in our elections. I don’t see the word HOSTILE mentioned or defined in the Logan Act statute either. The Act states:

        “Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.”

        I think we can both agree that prosecution under the Logan Act will be a huge sensational circus. It will be a case of first impression and the fact that Trump was president elect should be a significant point of dispute. Most importantly, prosecuting him under the act lacks a criminal motive.




      • condor says:

        Now you are just being silly. The reason hostile is important is not because of the Logan Act, proper, but because most ordinary Americans will agree that the no private citizen should be negotiating with a hostile foreign power, against the sitting President’s express sanctions. It is common sense — of which there is too little on the right these days.

        So your quibbling, in such a matter, is just — silly.

        HRC was SITTING President Obama’s emissary — acting with BHO’s express authority. Did you see the Logan Act part about “defeat measures of the United States”?! Supporting TPP was BHO’s agenda, as it was HRC’s.

        By way of contrast, Flynn was INTENTIONALLY undercutting the sitting President of the United States — to defeat “measures of the United States”. He was a private citizen then, without authority.

        Trump just tweeted that his acts were lawful. That’s just Nixon saying “when I say its lawful, it is” all over again.

        Finally, since all of this is off topic for this blog, I will predict that 45 will be in trouble for entirely separate financial crimes.

        Once again, that Flynn flipped is all you need to know here — Flynn will tell much worse but truthful tales, with documented evidence — of all of 45’s other (at this point, still just alleged) crimes. . . trust that.

        No way (IMHO) does a former US General plead guilty to a potential incarceration-laced offense, unless MUCH WORSE was already going on, over his head.

        Now I’ll hush on this topic — and you should lay off the bobble-head Hannity talking points.


      • aldt440 says:

        “The reason hostile is important is not because of the Logan Act, proper, but because most ordinary Americans will agree that the no private citizen should be negotiating with a hostile foreign power, against the sitting President’s express sanctions. It is common sense — of which there is too little on the right these days.”

        Oh really? The State Department thinks otherwise.


        Liked by 1 person

  5. aldt440 says:

    Any word about disgorgement? There’s a whole bunch of people that indirectly profited from these crimes but, according to the FEDs, lack culpability. This just boggles my mind: Shkreli was convicted of stealing and levied, but they guys that ultimately received the fruits of his crime get to keep it? Everybody gets a participation trophy but Shkrei???

    Liked by 1 person

    • condor says:

      Do read the whole motion. Restitution (something Shkreli must pay separately)… is for another day — likely ordered at sentencing in January 2018.

      As to bemoaning others, the Shkreli case is the same as so many others. But please never paint him as a victim in any way: he is a pure predator. His jailhouse notes (some being posted to his Facebook page by a trusted accomplice) show only distain for the rule of law.

      I’ll hush now — but I’ll shed no crocodile tears for those mentioned, either.



  6. FTD says:

    Good riddance to this feckless con man claiming “I want to dedicate my life to help the terminally ill”

    I still predict the judge is going to send him some place far worse if all of the offenses/stunts he struck up in prison are being currently logged.

    Liked by 1 person

    • condor says:

      And, we now learn — in a late Friday order entered by the able Judge Matsumoto, that Mr. Greebel’s defense team will be working late tonight, and into Saturday morning, thus:

      ORDER as to Evan Greebel. Defense counsel has advised the government and the court that defendant may choose to present a case-in-chief. The court is also in receipt of defendant’s letter-motion [462] to compel the government to provide supplemental disclosures for its potential rebuttal experts. The government has argued that it is not yet clear which, if any, experts the defense may choose to call, and that defense experts may offer different testimony than previously disclosed. (See ECF No. [463].)

      The court recognizes the difficulty all defendants face in deciding whether or not to present a case. Nonetheless, given the number of witnesses proposed (as of November 30, 2017, 20 fact and 6 expert witnesses) and the number of documents subpoenaed but not yet disclosed to the government, the court orders as follows:

      (1) By no later than December 2, 2017 at 11 a.m., defense counsel shall advise the government of the first five witnesses defendant will call if he presents a case.

      (2) With regard to the government’s oral motion to preclude documents obtained through two November 28, 2017 Rule 17(c) subpoenas served on Katten and Retrophin, the court orders that, by no later than December 2, 2017 at 1 p.m., defendant shall provide the government with copies of all documents in his possession, custody, or control which he intends to use in his case-in-chief, notwithstanding any evidentiary or authentication objections defense counsel anticipates the government may make to such documents. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b). Failure to comply with this order may result in the court granting the government’s motion to preclude the use of any such documents, regardless of whether these documents are also produced by an alternate source pursuant to a Rule 17(c) subpoena. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(2); see United States v. Levin, No. 15 CR. 101 (KBF), 2016 WL 299031, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2016) (citing, inter alia, United States v. Weiss, 930 F.2d 185, 199 (2d Cir. 1991)) (“A failure to comply with disclosure obligations can result in preclusion or another order that is just under the circumstances. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(2). Courts in this Circuit have upheld preclusion on an appropriately developed record for Rule 16(b) failures.”).

      (3) By no later than December 2, 2017 at 5 p.m., the defense shall advise the court and the government of its final anticipated expert witness list, the opinions of these experts if different than previously disclosed, and, if necessary, any associated supplemental disclosures. Within 48 hours of such disclosure, the government shall provide defendant with supplemental disclosures regarding the expert witnesses it may call in rebuttal (see Government’s November 28, 2017 letter, filed as ECF No. 462-1), including summaries of their expected testimony and disclosures of the bases of such testimony. The court will address pending government objections to defense expert witnesses following receipt of the defendant’s finalized expert disclosures.

      (4) By December 3, 2017 at 5 p.m., the parties shall jointly advise the court of the status of any outstanding Rule 17(c) subpoenas.

      Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 12/1/2017….

      SO now we wait for Saturday filings.



  7. bmartinmd says:

    So Shkreli is dangerously close to being broke. I, for one, am interested to see what equity Shkreli has (or still has) in Turing/Vyera. Is it $50 million, as Brafman suggested? That company continues to remains a big black box–especially regarding its leadership.

    Liked by 1 person

    • condor says:

      Indeed! I suspect it is nearly devoid of value. Smile… as a private company, its assets may have long ago been dissipated.

      We shall see… but it will be an instant Ramen noodles dinner, using a hot pot tonight, for Marty’s Friday — in the MDC can.

      That’s… a measure of… justice.


      (And… a confidential hello @ 10:28) smile…


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.