Elizabeth Holmes convicted of fraud

[fourfathom]

What is really worrying is that none of the backers did any research or showed any due diligence of any sort. It's just not possible with such a tiny sample. The backers were stupid but you can't prosecute stupidity.

At the very early stages of a cutting-edge startup there is usually some "And then a miracle occurs" factor.  Sometimes this miracle occurs, some times it doesn't.  And even if it doesn't there is often some valuable byproduct that results from the effort.  So I don't necessarily fault the initial investors for giving Holmes a few (hundreds of thousands) dollars to see what she could make happen.  What I *do* fault them for is for not pulling the plug before it spiraled out of control and other people were harmed.  Obviously Holmes lied, but the lead investors still should have been able to see the problems.

[Stray Electron]

Wow, so she deliberately got pregnant to reduce her sentence?...What a nutjob.  I pity that child.

Twice. She conveniently got pregent during the initial trial. This new kid is for the sentencing.

  She might end up with a large family by the time this is all over and done with.

[SiliconWizard]

What is really worrying is that none of the backers did any research or showed any due diligence of any sort. It's just not possible with such a tiny sample. The backers were stupid but you can't prosecute stupidity.

At the very early stages of a cutting-edge startup there is usually some "And then a miracle occurs" factor.  Sometimes this miracle occurs, some times it doesn't.  And even if it doesn't there is often some valuable byproduct that results from the effort.  So I don't necessarily fault the initial investors for giving Holmes a few (hundreds of thousands) dollars to see what she could make happen.  What I *do* fault them for is for not pulling the plug before it spiraled out of control and other people were harmed.  Obviously Holmes lied, but the lead investors still should have been able to see the problems.

Well uh, yeah. Do people realize that Theranos was created 20 years ago and that it operated for 15 years? That's crazy.
15 fricking years guys. Not 3.

[rsjsouza]

Solar roadways is eight years old and going the same path, although not with the potential to cause as much harm as Theranos - well, unless they manage to put their shiny glass in a busy highway and it rains... 

[SiliconWizard]

Yep. That's the crazy part. Nobody in their right mind can keep claiming over such a long time period that they never saw any problem. And suddenly, a decade or more later, bam. Big surprise.
Yeah, right.

But yes, this just keeps happening and people holding money and power keep playing innocent victims. Fricking liers.

[Nominal Animal]

This has happened before, and this will happen again.

The only thing we can do to make it happen as rarely as possible, is to make sure the punishment acts as a deterrent.

It is pretty clear Holmes is one of the people who aren't bound by morals or social norms (i.e., sociopath or psychopath, depending on how you define the terms), so although a punishment will not cause her to change, it will cause her to reconsider what actions are acceptable due to their consequences.

A year and a half confined to her luxury home would definitely not do that.  Only the loss of control of her personal life (i.e., in a correctional facility, with enforced timetables and rules) will do that.

She has been trying hard to appear small, feminine, someone to be protected, because she wants to avoid the consequences, and is appealing to base instincts and others' morals to do so.  ("Would you really put a mother of a baby in jail for a non-violent crime?")

I find her actions despicable on multiple levels.  What she did is one thing.  But using calculated manipulation in the hopes of avoiding the consequences, that is another, and in my opinion, should also be punished for.  Harshly.

[langwadt]

Yep. That's the crazy part. Nobody in their right mind can keep claiming over such a long time period that they never saw any problem. And suddenly, a decade or more later, bam. Big surprise.
Yeah, right.

But yes, this just keeps happening and people holding money and power keep playing innocent victims. Fricking liers.

if you were heavily invested in something and found it was a scam would you expose it and lose all the money, or be quiet and hope to find a way out with some of the money?

did anyone but billionaires with more money than brains hoping to make even more money lose anything?

[magic]

Too bad that Balwani cannot get pregnant   

I wouldn't be entirely sure of that; cross your fingers and this story may keep giving for a little longer

  She might end up with a large family by the time this is all over and done with.

Arguably a better use of her time than business, but all the angered male feminists in this thread will continue to wish her a life in prison instead

[Nominal Animal]

did anyone but billionaires with more money than brains hoping to make even more money lose anything?

Well, Ian Gibbons (the chief scientist) apparently lost his will to live because of this mess, and killed himself.

[PlainName]

Wow, so she deliberately got pregnant to reduce her sentence?...What a nutjob.  I pity that child.

Twice. She conveniently got pregent during the initial trial. This new kid is for the sentencing.

Are you sure you want to be unequivocal on that, or should you note that your opinion is it's a potentially fortuitous coincidence?

[Black Phoenix]

Wow, so she deliberately got pregnant to reduce her sentence?...What a nutjob.  I pity that child.

Twice. She conveniently got pregent during the initial trial. This new kid is for the sentencing.

Are you sure you want to be unequivocal on that, or should you note that your opinion is it's a potentially fortuitous coincidence?

Sorry but knowing the profile of the Elizabeth Holmes, I'm with Dave on this one. It's too good to be coincidentally, in both instances...

[MikeK]

Absolutely.  She's a psycho.  Hopefully those kids won't be too demented.

[MrMobodies]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11447809/Widow-British-scientist-67-celebrates-11-year-jail-sentence-pregnant-fraudster.html

Widow of a British scientist, 67, who killed himself while working for bogus blood-testing firm Theranos celebrates the 11 year jail sentence for pregnant fraudster Elizabeth Holmes

By DANIEL BATES IN NEW YORK FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY
PUBLISHED: 22:01, 19 November 2022 | UPDATED: 22:41, 19 November 2022

...

During her sentencing, Holmes broke down in tears as she addressed the court, saying she was 'devastated by my failings' and felt 'deep pain' for what she put others through, while her lawyers insisted she was only trying to help people.

But Mrs Gibbons said: 'That's b*******. She didn't feel anything.'

Holmes, 38, has said she will appeal against the sentence. She is pregnant with her second child and will not be locked up until April, when the court in San Jose, California, has ordered her to surrender to custody. The judge will later hold a hearing determining how much money she will have to repay

Mrs Gibbons, 75, said Holmes should have been 'locked up right away', adding: 'She was really foolish. The way she conducted herself with the jury – smiling and flirting.

... and possibly a third one in April in an attempt to buy some more time.

Joke: She was "devastated by her failings" to wriggle out of court and felt deep pain for the victims that she couldn't shut them up in time.

[PlainName]

Wow, so she deliberately got pregnant to reduce her sentence?...What a nutjob.  I pity that child.

Twice. She conveniently got pregent during the initial trial. This new kid is for the sentencing.

Are you sure you want to be unequivocal on that, or should you note that your opinion is it's a potentially fortuitous coincidence?

Sorry but knowing the profile of the Elizabeth Holmes, I'm with Dave on this one. It's too good to be coincidentally, in both instances...

Perhaps you're unaware of recent cases that might include Johnny Depp and Rebekah Vardy, amongst others. The likes of me and you don't have enough funds to make a court case worthwhile, but Dave is rather more high profile and wealthy.

It is one thing to state an opinion, quite another to state something as fact.

[JPortici]

Wow, so she deliberately got pregnant to reduce her sentence?...What a nutjob.  I pity that child.

Twice. She conveniently got pregent during the initial trial. This new kid is for the sentencing.

Are you sure you want to be unequivocal on that, or should you note that your opinion is it's a potentially fortuitous coincidence?

Not unheard of (not the only one, just the first news article i could find)
https://milano.corriere.it/notizie/cronaca/21_dicembre_14/milano-ladra-sempre-incinta-30-anni-scontare-mai-giorno-carcere-neanche-stavolta-f1472968-5ca9-11ec-b726-1eb27041da48.shtml

(sorry for the need to translate but i don't think these cases ever go international news)

[Black Phoenix]

Wow, so she deliberately got pregnant to reduce her sentence?...What a nutjob.  I pity that child.

Twice. She conveniently got pregent during the initial trial. This new kid is for the sentencing.

Are you sure you want to be unequivocal on that, or should you note that your opinion is it's a potentially fortuitous coincidence?

Sorry but knowing the profile of the Elizabeth Holmes, I'm with Dave on this one. It's too good to be coincidentally, in both instances...

Perhaps you're unaware of recent cases that might include Johnny Depp and Rebekah Vardy, amongst others. The likes of me and you don't have enough funds to make a court case worthwhile, but Dave is rather more high profile and wealthy.

It is one thing to state an opinion, quite another to state something as fact.

Ahh for fuck sake, go outside touch the grass... You must live in the fantasy world were everything is perfect and no one lies or have second intentions/motives.

So you really believe that she got pregnant not once but twice because she felt it would be able to take care of her kids and everything was an injustice, so the case would be dropped? Or that it was an "accident"?

Come on, you must also believe in Santa's and the Easter Bunny, no?

[PlainName]

Wow, so she deliberately got pregnant to reduce her sentence?...What a nutjob.  I pity that child.

Twice. She conveniently got pregent during the initial trial. This new kid is for the sentencing.

Are you sure you want to be unequivocal on that, or should you note that your opinion is it's a potentially fortuitous coincidence?

Sorry but knowing the profile of the Elizabeth Holmes, I'm with Dave on this one. It's too good to be coincidentally, in both instances...

Perhaps you're unaware of recent cases that might include Johnny Depp and Rebekah Vardy, amongst others. The likes of me and you don't have enough funds to make a court case worthwhile, but Dave is rather more high profile and wealthy.

It is one thing to state an opinion, quite another to state something as fact.

Ahh for fuck sake, go outside touch the grass... You must live in the fantasy world were everything is perfect and no one lies or have second intentions/motives.

So you really believe that she got pregnant not once but twice because she felt it would be able to take care of her kids and everything was an injustice, so the case would be dropped? Or that it was an "accident"?

Come on, you must also believe in Santa's and the Easter Bunny, no?

WTF?!?! Are you incapable of reading or just understanding? This is exactly why we can't have proper discussions on here, because any 'off-piste' thing automatically means "if you're not 100% with us you're against us".

This is not about what I am alleged to believe. In fact, I was once propositioned to get some lass pregnant explicitly to jump the council housing queue, so I am not unaware that this stuff goes on.

If you would care to reread my original, you will see that I am suggesting that Dave might care to protect himself from someone deciding he's worth making an example of, or getting some free money. Whether or not anyone believes anything or not is irrelevant - just defending yourself from such a high-profile suit is painfully expensive even if it has no merit.

[Black Phoenix]

WTF?!?! Are you incapable of reading or just understanding? This is exactly why we can't have proper discussions on here, because any 'off-piste' thing automatically means "if you're not 100% with us you're against us".

This is not about what I am alleged to believe. In fact, I was once propositioned to get some lass pregnant explicitly to jump the council housing queue, so I am not unaware that this stuff goes on.

If you would care to reread my original, you will see that I am suggesting that Dave might care to protect himself from someone deciding he's worth making an example of, or getting some free money. Whether or not anyone believes anything or not is irrelevant - just defending yourself from such a high-profile suit is painfully expensive even if it has no merit.

OK, point taken. My apologies for my lashing out on you. My mistake and my lack of understanding it.

English is not my first language and although I'm confident on my speech and grasp of meanings sometimes as now this kind of stuff happens.

Although this is not to put the excuse on that, because it was totally my misunderstanding.

[Stray Electron]

did anyone but billionaires with more money than brains hoping to make even more money lose anything?

   Oh, yes, they certainly did!  A lot of investment funds managers bought into this and many of the pie-in-the-sky ventures that didn't work.  The really SAD part is that they invested funds from retirement accounts of working class people who had been investing into what were supposed to be safe retirement funds for all of their working lives. As a result of both Homes' scam and other scams (Bernie Madoff, for example) and other ill conceived projects, hundreds of thousands if not millions of hard working people have little, and sometimes no, funds for retirement.

   I've never seen anyone that was RICH lose everything in this sorts of schemes but I have seen a lot of middle class working people lose their entire retirement  (for example at WorldCom), and many more that lose a major portion of their retirement, due to poor choices made by their funds manager.   That's why IMO anyone that bought into Holmes' scheme and invested other people's money should go to jail right along with Holmes and the others.  I would have to say that IMO everyone that invested in Holmes' scheme didn't do their due diligence and they should all be held responsible.   If they invested their own money, then fine, they can suffer the financial loss. But if they invested money that belonged to other people, then they failed in their fiduciary responsibility and should be held financially and criminally responsible.

[Stray Electron]

This has happened before, and this will happen again.

The only thing we can do to make it happen as rarely as possible, is to make sure the punishment acts as a deterrent.

It is pretty clear Holmes is one of the people who aren't bound by morals or social norms (i.e., sociopath or psychopath, depending on how you define the terms), so although a punishment will not cause her to change, it will cause her to reconsider what actions are acceptable due to their consequences.

A year and a half confined to her luxury home would definitely not do that.  Only the loss of control of her personal life (i.e., in a correctional facility, with enforced timetables and rules) will do that.

She has been trying hard to appear small, feminine, someone to be protected, because she wants to avoid the consequences, and is appealing to base instincts and others' morals to do so.  ("Would you really put a mother of a baby in jail for a non-violent crime?")

I find her actions despicable on multiple levels.  What she did is one thing.  But using calculated manipulation in the hopes of avoiding the consequences, that is another, and in my opinion, should also be punished for.  Harshly.

   You summed up my opinion of her and this entire scam perfectly.   

[fourfathom]

But if they invested money that belonged to other people, then they failed in their fiduciary responsibility and should be held financially and criminally responsible.

Yes.  This is the key element in any follow-on action.  But if the manager of other peoples money relied on representations that turned out to be false, then where does the blame ultimately lie?  I don't think we can expect each and every fund manager to employ a staff of molecular biologists to do the level of due diligence necessary to verify the validity of a cutting-edge business like Theranos.  But unless the manager has been open about the type of investments they plan to make, the manager shouldn't be investing in that class of early-stage ventures.

If I give my money to a manager of a Fortune 500 fund, I'm going to be pretty upset if I find out they invested in Theranos or FTX (crypto).

[nctnico]

This has happened before, and this will happen again.

The only thing we can do to make it happen as rarely as possible, is to make sure the punishment acts as a deterrent.

That is not going to work. Criminals will be criminals. Look at the US: highest crime rate and highest percentage of people in prison.

The only thing that is going to help is having good laws & raise awareness to prevent scams and enough people in law enforcement to go after criminals.

[SiliconWizard]

Again, if you really want this to happen less often, then you must focus not just on punishing one person while leaving all the people who participated in the whole fraud alone or even grant them the victim status.

Kids should be protected 100%. No question about that.
Adults should be held responsible of what they decide to do as long as they were not physically constrained, or unless they are *really* diagnosed as mentally disabled.

Anyone having participated in this whole Theranos mess IS liable. (Not talking about customers/patients here, but everyone else: investors, managers, even employees, at least engineers who I'm sure knew after just a couple years that something wasn't right.)

As long as we will fail to properly acknowledge responsibilities in *allowing* frauds to happen, they will. Punishing a single person (or just a very limited few) identified as a big criminal responsible of everything while the rest was merely victims is never going to work.

So sure, she should be punished according to the damage she made, but we should not focus on her IMHO. We should reflect on ourselves and asking ourselves what we can each do not to allow this to happen again.

Maybe some honesty, less greed, doing our homework/due diligence and getting some education will help.
There will always be criminals.
The question to me is, what we, non-criminals, which are actually the majority (thankfully), can do to avoid creating favorable contexts for at least certain kinds of criminality.

As a metaphor, imagine you leave your house door wide open 24/7. The probability of getting robbed would be extremely high. Would you then spend all your efforts in courts to make sure the robbers are harshly punished, while still leaving your door wide open and never recognizing you were doing something stupid, while it was pretty obvious? Would securing your house, even a little bit, not be a considerably more effective method?

[nctnico]

Again, if you really want this to happen less often, then you must focus not just on punishing one person while leaving all the people who participated in the whole fraud alone or even grant them the victim status.

Kids should be protected 100%. No question about that.
Adults should be held responsible of what they decide to do as long as they were not physically constrained, or unless they are *really* diagnosed as mentally disabled.

Also no. Financial scams or even financial consumer products can be constructed so cleverly that it takes a genius to unravel the intricate details of how a financial product that looks good on the outside still is not beneficial to the consumer. In the Netherlands several insurance companies are being sued for tens of billions of euros for selling products that should allow people to invest money into funds in order to save up money to pay for a mortgage. In reality these where life insurances with very poor ROI but this was so obfustigated that the people selling these policies didn't understand what they where selling. There is no way you can understand the inner workings of such products without having a university level degree in insurances AND having access to all the details.

Again: rules and regulation are the way out to protect the consumers.

Or let me put it differently: when you buy a banana in the store, are you going to test it for harmfull pesticides yourself or are you going to trust the government agencies that regulate production methods & import of food to make sure the bananas are safe to eat?

Ofcourse part of rules can be aimed to protect yourself properly. In the Netherlands it is mandatory to have smoke detectors installed in your home.

[Nominal Animal]

This has happened before, and this will happen again.

The only thing we can do to make it happen as rarely as possible, is to make sure the punishment acts as a deterrent.

That is not going to work. Criminals will be criminals. Look at the US: highest crime rate and highest percentage of people in prison.

She is not a typical criminal, like I said.  Besides, a single data point does not a rule make.

The only thing that is going to help is having good laws & raise awareness to prevent scams and enough people in law enforcement to go after criminals.

Good, sensible laws will definitely reduce crime, that I fully agree with.  Law enforcement needs the resources to investigate crime, absolutely.

As to raising awareness to prevent scams, that is a cultural/sociological issue, not an universal law.  If scamming was considered disgusting, it would be rarer, because most people, even criminals, are surprisingly strongly driven by social pressure.  But no matter how disgusting, there would always be some hyper-scammers like Bernie Madoff or Elizabeth Holmes –– or just about anyone in the Wikipedia notable fraudsters list –– because they are sociopaths or psychopaths, and react to social pressure (that makes "normal" people avoid crime) in a completely different way.

Thus, my point was not about crime in general.  It was specifically about these brazen fraudsters who commit to it big time and for big bucks, i.e. specifically psychopaths and sociopaths.  To give them pause, the punishment must be significant.

The way Elizabeth Holmes tried to use social manipulation to avoid a harsh punishment, is just a double "fuck you" to all law-abiding people, as a cherry on top.