Judge rejects inmate 87850-053's (M Shkreli) request to release his bail, prison rap album still WIP - Sensationalist Headlines

[quote=CNN][B]Martin Shkreli cannot have back his $5 million bail, even though he's in jail.[/B] Judge Kiyo Matsumoto denied a request to return the funds to Shkreli, who was convicted of fraud in August. "The court concludes that Mr. Shkreli will not suffer an 'undue hardship' by the retention of his bond," Matsumoto said in a court order filed on Thursday. Shkreli's lawyer Ben Brafman wrote a letter requesting the bail be released. He said the money would not go directly to Shkreli, but to a fund managed by Fox Rothschild LLP to pay off Shkreli's growing tax debt. Brafman declined comment to CNNMoney. The judge said the court needs to hold onto the money while it decides whether to impose fines or restitution as a result of Shkreli's investment scam. A hearing is scheduled for October 24.[/quote] [URL="http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/19/news/martin-shkreli-bail-release-denied/index.html"]Source[/URL] :cool:

fox rothschild LLP? sounds even fuckin shadier than marty mcshkreli

[QUOTE=Rolond Returns;52797407]fox rothschild LLP? sounds even fuckin shadier than marty mcshkreli[/QUOTE] Its just a law firm, it isn't unusual for law firms to maintain accounts or funds.

i think it's funny people will defend this dude as a good guy despite the fact that he's literally just as shady as any other business head, just because he's got "sick bantz bro" [editline]scrum[/editline] "you don't get it he was really trying to do a good thing"

[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;52797790]i think it's funny people will defend this dude as a good guy despite the fact that he's literally just as shady as any other business head, just because he's got "sick bantz bro" [editline]scrum[/editline] "you don't get it he was really trying to do a good thing"[/QUOTE] Problem is that most people haven't a clue what he's actually being prosecuted for. It has nothing to do with raising the price of that one drug.

[QUOTE=joost1120;52798041]Problem is that most people haven't a clue what he's actually being prosecuted for. It has nothing to do with raising the price of that one drug.[/QUOTE] Well yeah, he went to jail for fraud. also probably for being an asshole, if I'm gonna be honest.

[quote]The court concludes that Mr. Shkreli will not suffer an 'undue hardship' by the retention of his bond[/quote] This seems like a poor reason to deny it, to me. I don't like the philosophy of asking if there's a reason to return it, rather than asking if there's a reason they [I]shouldn't[/I] return it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding how this works, as I personally haven't ever been accused of anything, I'm not majoring in law or government, and I have no other frame of reference for this situation, but it just seems like they're flexing their nuts trying to get high off power. Is it normal for them to just go "ehh they don't need it, denied" so flippantly?

Bail is supposed to be returned, even if found guilty, since bail's purpose is to bond you to the court and ensure your return. The judge can do whatever he wishes however since sometimes a portion of the bond is deducted if found guilty.

[QUOTE=gk99;52799545]This seems like a poor reason to deny it, to me. I don't like the philosophy of asking if there's a reason to return it, rather than asking if there's a reason they [I]shouldn't[/I] return it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding how this works, as I personally haven't ever been accused of anything, I'm not majoring in law or government, and I have no other frame of reference for this situation, but it just seems like they're flexing their nuts trying to get high off power. Is it normal for them to just go "ehh they don't need it, denied" so flippantly?[/QUOTE] [Quote] The judge said the court needs to hold onto the money while it decides whether to impose fines or restitution as a result of Shkreli's investment scam. A hearing is scheduled for October 24.[/quote]

[QUOTE=joost1120;52798041]Problem is that most people haven't a clue what he's actually being prosecuted for. It has nothing to do with raising the price of that one drug.[/QUOTE] kind of and not really. what he got convicted of happened before he became the pharma bro but its because he was in deep shit and needed a huge pile of cash quickly that he started turing pharma and targeted cheap orphan drugs to presumably pay back the funds he scammed out of his previous venture before they raised hell over it.

[QUOTE=gk99;52799545]This seems like a poor reason to deny it, to me. I don't like the philosophy of asking if there's a reason to return it, rather than asking if there's a reason they [I]shouldn't[/I] return it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding how this works, as I personally haven't ever been accused of anything, I'm not majoring in law or government, and I have no other frame of reference for this situation, but it just seems like they're flexing their nuts trying to get high off power. Is it normal for them to just go "ehh they don't need it, denied" so flippantly?[/QUOTE] Judges and magistrate's can override the decision of the jury if they deem it necessary. Judges also are the only ones who have way in determining what punishment will be given (Magistrates can act on the contextual authority of the judge). As an example if a judge was corrupt or inept and the defendant is found guilty of... I don't know lets get extreme here: Murder, the judge could sentence him to 60 hours of community service. Before people scream bloody murder every state has laws that require mandatory minimum sentences for specific crimes. I'm not sure if the federal jurisdictions set forth mandatory sentences unto the states or not though.