Shkreli's crimes had nothing to do with the drug prices. Unless you think the jury/judge was biased due to it.

Holmes fleeced normal folks too by knowingly giving them inaccurate test results, which in some cases could lead to death.

Do some research into the actual facts around Shkreli and you'll find that he didn't fleece 'normal folks'. His profits came directly from large insurance firms.

> At least Holmes “victims” AFAIK were mostly rich folks

why would that make it any better?

I think the argument is that stealing $1 million from a billionaire could be considered ethically less bad than stealing $10,000 from someone who is $50,000 in debt due to medical bills. The second theft will have much more impact on the victim than the first.

But it's still irrelevant because his crimes were also against rich investors, and not at all related to raising the price of medication (which is 100% legal).

> The second theft will have much more impact on the victim than the first.

That hardly makes it OK though, Are you saying that the first case doesn't deserve the same punishment as the second?

I can’t speak for anyone else but Shkreli was convicted for Securities fraud, Holmes charged wire fraud. The court cases are pretty much moot. They will likely have similar outcomes.

Morally and Ethically however I’d consider Shkreli guilty of far more.