Shkreli Co-Conspirator Gets 18 Months’ Imprisonment
On August 17, 2018, former Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP attorney, Evan Greebel, was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment for his role in aiding former pharmaceutical executive, Martin Shkreli, in defrauding Retrophin, Inc. Greebel was found guilty by jury for conspiring to commit wire fraud and securities fraud.
Greebel faced an advisory range under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines of 108 to 135 months’ imprisonment. He asked for a probationary sentence, based in large part on his history and characteristics, including his commitment to community services and improving the lives of those less fortunate than him, and the argument that he had been unduly influenced by Shkreli. The defense also focused on the collateral effects that the conviction would have on Greebel, who likely will never practice law again, and his wife and young children. Greebel submitted nearly 300 pages of character letters to show the strong community support that he enjoyed.
The government conceded that a guidelines sentence was unwarranted in this case, but it would not agree to probation. Instead, it asked the Court to sentence Greebel to at least 60 months’ imprisonment, given the nature and seriousness of the offense. In its sentencing memorandum, the government characterized Greebel’s request for probation as an attempt to “carve out special treatment for white-collar criminals.”
Judge Masumoto credited the arguments of both parties but ultimately decided that incarceration was necessary to effectuate the purposes of sentencing set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). She sentenced him to 18 months’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay more than $10.4 million in restitution and forfeit $116,462.
For the Record“
He was not wreckless, he was not naive, he’s not inexperienced,” Judge Matsumoto said. “He was not led astray by a young, brash CEO. Mr. Greebel made a conscious decision to join in the conspiracies.”
The Take Away
Despite the government’s and the Court’s stated desire to ensure that white-collar defendants are not treated differently than other defendants, Greebel received a downward variance of nearly 85% from the bottom of his guideline range.