> He agreed to forfeit over $1.5B in assessts. I doubt he has much if anything left at this point.
Legitimate Source? Your link says that he _could_, multiple times. The article from the Justice Dept in OP says about 11 million.
Edit: Patent edited for a source, but still, Salame didn't pay the full $1.5B, as per parent's article:
> Should Salame pay the $6 million and turn over the various properties by the set deadlines – referred to as the substitute assets – he will be off the hook for the full amount, a DOJ filing said. "Upon receipt of the payment ... the [U.S.] shall accept the Payment and Substitute Assets in full satisfaction of the Money Judgement," the filing said.
So, he _didn't _ actually pay $1.5B. He may have agreed to forfeit it, but he still didn't have to pay that much, which was the point of GP's comment.
That judgemental didn't go through as per a quote from the article you posted:
> Should Salame pay the $6 million and turn over the various properties by the set deadlines – referred to as the substitute assets – he will be off the hook for the full amount, a DOJ filing said. "Upon receipt of the payment ... the [U.S.] shall accept the Payment and Substitute Assets in full satisfaction of the Money Judgement," the filing said.
I was confused, too, but that sum is listed in a different DOJ document.
> The defendant hereby admits the forfeiture allegation with respect to Count Two of the Information and agrees to forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(1), a sum of money equal to $1,555,186,143 in United States currency, representing property involved in said offense (the "Money Judgment"
there are a number of famous criminals back in the game. Being infamous is invaluable on twitter: jordan belfort, Shkreli, billy mcfarland. Just get a twitter account and sell the movie rights
After listening to Shkreli talk for a few hours he seems like the sort of person who thought he was just being clever and it turned out to be technically illegal. As opposed to brazen criminality. I wouldn’t feel bad about hiring him (though would do some more digging first).
I think he paid his previous investors with money his later venture earned. This is illegal because it's stealing money from the latter venture investors. But heart in the right place, good intentions, imo.
A new drug comes before the FDA for approval, and it is opened up for comment. Shkreli lodges an objection to approval of this drug.
Why? Because it's unsafe? No - trials thus far have shown it to be safer than the existing drug options.
Why? Because it's less effective? No - it's also been shown to be more effective than existing drugs.
Perhaps it's more expensive? No - cost of R&D and production, and estimated retail costs are expected to be lower than existing drugs.
Huh, odd. So why in this case would Shkreli oppose this drug getting to the market?
The only reason he lodged an appeal with the FDA had nothing to do with the drug, but was because he and his company had just bought the patent to one of those 'existing drugs' referenced, and this new drug coming to market would crater the demand for his drug, and torpedo the profitability of his investment in buying the patent.
Yes. Even if he loses everything nominally on paper, careers await upon his release. he has the connections still. These people almost always fail-forward.
He'll start his own YouTube channel and do a round of Lex Friedman, My First Million, The Diary of a CEO, Triggernometry, etc. to promote it, his book, and a course on "How Not to Get Scammed".
The press release says he's paying $11+ million in fines and restitution
> In addition to the prison term, SALAME, 30, of Potomac, Maryland, was sentenced to three years of supervised release and ordered to pay more than $6 million in forfeiture and more than $5 million in restitution.
Meh. I wouldn’t take any amount of money for 90 months in prison. Not sure if cooperators in financial crimes are considered “snitches” but I’m sure it doesn’t help. No thanks.
- Age when sentenced/age when released with expected 'good behavior'
- Amount of money hidden away that the prosecution couldn't find
- Where you are serving your sentence.
7.5 years (~5 after time served/good behavior) when you're 30 years old and >$100MM in hidden assets after serving time at a non-pound-me-in-the-ass-playground might be worth it to some--obviously not you, but maybe some.
The wealthy, when incarcerated (eg Weinstein, Spector or Cosby) are quite safe as they can and will easily afford to pay into to the prison protection rackets.
The rule against snitches does not apply to a camp-level prison, where he would serve. I am sure many people would trade in 5 years in low-level prison (he will not serve the full 90 months) for tens of millions or more awaiting.
> For persons convicted under civilian federal law after November 1, 1987, federal parole has been abolished, but the parole statutes continue to apply to prisoners who were grandfathered in.
However, there are other options for early release, namely the First Step Act.
> The Act amended 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) so that federal inmates can earn up to 54 days of good time credit for every year of their imposed sentence rather than for every year of their sentenced served. For example, this change means that an offender sentenced to 10 years in prison and who earns the maximum good time credits each year will earn 540 days of credit.
1 year in halfway-home, pre-sentencing, drug program , up to fifteen percent time reduction for good behavior. it works out to only 80 percent of the sentence served.
They are supposed to disclose the vulnerability after fixing it, so their users know they need to take action. That's what the original commenter rightly complained about.
People have bank passwords, social media accounts (which can be used in all sorts of nefarious ways), etc. Some may be 2FA protected, some may not be. Some may be protected by bad faux-2FA.
Just because there aren't million at stake doesn't mean you can't bring someone to ruin.
Crypto doesn’t change the game. Products that generate passwords should do so securely.
You may be using it to protect extremely sensitive information that could have people killed - that’s more important than a few million dollars in imaginary money
This is already done. The feds and hackers have huge troves of wallets and files that they are trying to crack, either by finding holes in the encryption method used or brute force.
America has this too. It's homelessness. The drug abuse and mental illness makes it worse though. Unlike the comparably docile hikikomori, drug and alcohol use leads to erratic and aggressive behavior and makes accommodations and treatment impossible, hence homelessness.
Homelessness is the scariest thing for me. And actually I know that in many cases you became one without your actual influence on it. This problem breaks my heart.
100% this. I think the reason we see these people homeless in the US is due to the myth of the self-sufficiency. That if you can't succeed or fit in it's because you are deficient in some way. It makes it hard to ask for help and it's doubly so if you are introverted to this extreme.
Are Harpers and The New Yorker in a battle to see who can write the longest article. It was easy to start a bullshit religion in the mid 20th century. No google/yelp, a huge population of credulous people before the post-90s cynicism set in, post-war prosperity and discretionary income, Cold War paranoia and the public's receptiveness to doomsday messaging, a willingness of public to trust authority figures or anyone who claimed to be one.
maybe it was the fast food that did him, in the end
For Supersize Me, notably Mr. Spurlock failed to disclose to his doctor or viewers his drinking habit, which more likely contributed to his abnormal blood panel readings, not the fast food. The whole thing was propaganda that the public ate up. It's hard to overstate how big of a deal that movie was in 2004-2005. Colleges organized group screenings of it. The ensuing bad press from Supersize Me forced McDonald's to discontinue its eponymous meal upgrade option.
I dont understand this recent talking point. Surely eating a "supersize me" multiple times a day is going to cause an increase in fat, weight, cholesterol etc. We know this.
Plus the fact that the whole documentary was intentionally extreme: no one eats mcdonalds 3 times a day. Its sorta pointless to begin with.
Pointing to his alcoholism to dismiss the health concerns, which are obviously true, seems very odd to me.
>Pointing to his alcoholism to dismiss the health concerns, which are obviously true, seems very odd to me.
The very doctors talking to Spurlock in the documentary told him that what they saw of his liver should be impossible if he wasn't an alcoholic, thirty days of eating 5000 calories a day or not. It takes a significant amount of time to do that kind of damage to your liver.
Turns out he was an alcoholic.
SuperSize Me wasn't "about" "hey did you know if you eat a lot of fast food, it's bad for you?", the thesis of the production was that thing that America loves to ignore: A company wants you to buy more of their products and services, and will happily sell them and push them to you, no matter how much it hurts you.
"SuperSize me" was about how McDonalds had their cashiers push supersizing at every single purchase, as if it was Gamestop pushing their magazine, despite that empirically not being something the vast majority of purchases SHOULD do, because it's profitable.
Like christ folks, it's the damn title!
The "it made me unhealthy" portion of the movie was basically fraud though, and quickly called out as such. But it wasn't there to "prove" anything, but rather because American Documentaries from the period (and probably still now) view themselves first and foremost as "shock" entertainment, second as spectacle, and only have meaningful content if there's some spare room in the runtime. Documentaries "compete" with action movie schlock in the US
The point of the documentary is to track how his health is affected by the food. Consuming a lot of alcohol is a relevant, major confounder. It discredits the work.
I can believe it back then, when the big mac was either on the dollar menu or very close to value prices. I wouldn't believe it in 2024 where the sandwich alone is $5 + tax (disclaimer: high CoL area).
Big Mac is probably the worst burger because of that stupid middle bun, but it's not awful by itself to eat. 700 calories or so. It's the drink and soda that double that and really puts you over.
You're saying that the results of the experiment would be "obvious", so what's the reason for doing the experiment at all? If you're going to do the experiment, why do it with an alcoholic?
Far from being odd, his alcoholism was almost an ideal way to dismiss any concerns about fast food. Having a reasonably healthy non-alcoholic go to McDonald's when they are hungry, and still doing the gimmick of accepting "Super-sized" when offered, would be what you should do. The problem is that the effects of that wouldn't be very dramatic. McDonald's isn't a magical gypsy curse, it's rich, high-quality food with too much sugar (in the soda.) You can do the same thing to yourself cooking raw ingredients at home and drinking sweet tea. If you're an alcoholic, you can fuck up your liver without eating a thing.
reply