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.

> 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.

It says "Could " Do people even read the headlines they link to? The DOJ link did not mention giving up everything. It said restitution of millions.

> 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"

https://downloads.coindesk.com/legal/2023.09.07%20Signed%20M...

I don't think it's possible for a billionaire to cease being rich.

It's the same situation here. He took money that was due to one group of people and paid some of it to another group of people. This idea that if people make a net profit then it's basically ok even though he took some of their money is totally unsuported by the law for good reason.

This is an example of his character:

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.

Fuck Martin Shkreli.