That I dunno. If no one has been left out of pocket, one could argue that there is nothing to return. Who or what are they compensating if no party suffered a material loss?

I think the relevant quote from the judgment is: 'criminal forfeiture serves no remedial purpose, [and] is designed to punish the offender...'

So they don't actually care about compensation, they just have the right and want him to bleed.

Penalties in these cases are based on losses suffered, and there were no losses.

The US government is attempting to make an example out of Shkreli.

If it was true that both no one was unjustly deprived and Shkreli had no direct or indirect gains (gross, not net of, say, separate criminal acts with offsetting effects taken together) for any of the individual crimes he was convicted of, it would seem to be accurate that the standards of the criminal forfeiture statute would not be met.

OTOH, that doesn't actually seem likely to be true.