The account’s owner followed a number of reporters covering the trial earlier in the week, and tweeted multiple messages about the case. Those messages, as well as other comments on the Twitter feed, echoed Shkreli’s well-known online voice, which is widely considered as troll-ish. On Thursday, the account owner abruptly blocked most of those reporters from reading the message feed.

Meanwhile, Shkreli was streaming a live video feed showing his empty Manhattan apartment on YouTube for hours, while he was in the Brooklyn courthouse.

At one point, more than 40 people had connected to the livestream, with several of them bickering in the related comment thread.

Shkreli is charged with defrauding more than a half-dozen people who invested in two hedge funds he ran. He is accused of lying about the performance of those funds, and then refusing to give them back investors’ money when they asked for it.

Shkreli also is accused of looting the drug company he founded, Retrophin, out of stock and cash to pay back the hedge fund investors for their swindled money. Shkreli denies the charges, which are unrelated to his having notoriously raised of the price of an anti-parasite drug by more than 5,000 percent in 2015.

On Tuesday, jurors asked Judge Kiyo Matsumoto questions about the term “assets under management,” which refers to the value of cash and investments that a fund manager is responsible for.

Jurors wanted to know the definition of the term, and whether it referred to assets in “a particular fund being discussed or to all the assets managed by the portfolio manager/general partner.”

Matsumoto said she could not give them a definition, since none was introduced through testimony or evidence during the trial.

As for the question of what Shkreli intended when he talked about assets under management to investors, the Securities and Exchange Commission and alleged co-conspirators, the judge told jurors it “is an issue in dispute for you to resolve.”

Shkreli, according to prosecutors, repeatedly lied to investors about the size of his funds’ assets, claiming to have tens of millions of dollars under management. In reality, neither fund had much more than $3 million at their respective peaks, and often much, much less than that, prosecutors said.

Jurors also had asked Matsumoto to clarify the term “fraudulent intent.” Shkreli’s lawyer Benjamin Brafman had argued that Shkreli lacked such intent, and deserved to be acquitted.

The judge pointed jurors to the sections in the legal instructions she had read to them before they started their deliberations.

Facebook Comments