undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmilankovic8y ago0 comments

Oh, wow..

Honest question: I know that plea deals and other rather arcane behind-the-scenes agreements are a thing, but as someone who is not all too familiar with the American justice system, is that really the only relevant difference?

So, what kept Shkreli from taking a deal?

0 comments

danaliv8y ago

The US has two parallel justice systems. One is civil, the other is criminal. The purpose of the civil justice system is to resolve disputes and amend harms. The purpose of the criminal system is to punish.

Shkreli was charged in the criminal system; Theranos was caught up in the civil system.

You can’t take a plea deal in the civil system because there’s nothing to plead to. You can only settle, which essentially means the parties to the dispute figured out an agreement without the help of the court.

milankovicOP8y ago

> The US has two parallel justice systems. One is civil, the other is criminal.

Yes, so far it's all pretty clear I think..

But since my reply has been to this comment:

> Shkreli fought it - she took the deal.

I was a bit confused by this. Because this implies there was a deal (or maybe more than one deal) in Shkreli's case, as well as in the Theranos case.

cwkoss8y ago

From my limited understanding, he broke the law but was able to return all the funds to investors. So there weren't damages per se, but I think statutory penalties instead.

zaidf8y ago

SEC cannot bring criminal charges. The Justice Department can. We will see if they do in the case of Elizabeth Holmes.

milankovicOP8y ago

Okay, interesting. Although it seems a bit strange that this would end up in Washington at the federal level, i.e. Justice Department.. I don't think that they have to deal with just any case of fraud, even big ones. But I could be mistaken.

But if the Justice Department handles this I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing gets kind of, well, political..

Also, this somehow begs the question who brought the charges in Shkreli's case.

milankovicOP8y ago

Well, that is also my limited understanding so far..

Is it accurate to say that he broke the law by misleading his investors?

aleeds8y ago

He thought he could get away with it.

milankovicOP8y ago

Apparently. And it seems that Theranos actually gets away with it.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

danaliv8y ago

Shkreli was charged in the criminal system; Theranos was caught up in the civil system.

milankovicOP8y ago

> The US has two parallel justice systems. One is civil, the other is criminal.

Yes, so far it's all pretty clear I think..

But since my reply has been to this comment:

> Shkreli fought it - she took the deal.

I was a bit confused by this. Because this implies there was a deal (or maybe more than one deal) in Shkreli's case, as well as in the Theranos case.

cwkoss8y ago

From my limited understanding, he broke the law but was able to return all the funds to investors. So there weren't damages per se, but I think statutory penalties instead.

zaidf8y ago

SEC cannot bring criminal charges. The Justice Department can. We will see if they do in the case of Elizabeth Holmes.

milankovicOP8y ago

But if the Justice Department handles this I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing gets kind of, well, political..

Also, this somehow begs the question who brought the charges in Shkreli's case.

milankovicOP8y ago

Well, that is also my limited understanding so far..

Is it accurate to say that he broke the law by misleading his investors?

aleeds8y ago

He thought he could get away with it.

milankovicOP8y ago

Apparently. And it seems that Theranos actually gets away with it.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse