General > General Technical Chat
Elizabeth Holmes convicted of fraud
MrMobodies:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59734254
--- Quote ---Elizabeth Holmes: Theranos founder convicted of fraud
Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes has been convicted of defrauding investors after a months-long landmark trial in California.
05/01/22
Holmes remains on bail before sentencing at a later date.
Prosecutors said Holmes knowingly lied about technology she said could detect diseases with a few drops of blood. Jurors found Holmes guilty of conspiracy to commit fraud against investors and three charges of wire fraud.
She denied the charges, which carry a maximum prison term of 20 years each. Holmes was not taken into custody, with no date confirmed yet for sentencing and a further hearing scheduled next week. Journalists inside the courtroom said the 37-year-old, who gave birth to her first child last year, showed little emotion when the verdicts were read out, and hugged her husband, Billy Evans, and her parents before leaving the courtroom.
Holmes faced 11 charges in total and was found not guilty of four charges relating to defrauding the public. The split verdict came after the judge said the jury, having deliberated for seven days, could deliver a partial verdict after being unable to reach consensus on another three counts. The three wire fraud charges she was found guilty of are tied to specific investors in her failed company. Wire fraud is a relatively wide-ranging federal crime in the US, which involves using electronic communications, such as emails, to make false statements to get something from another person - usually money.
Theranos, at one point valued at $9bn (£6.5bn), was once the darling of biotech and Silicon Valley. Holmes was able to raise more than $900m from billionaires such as media magnate Rupert Murdoch and tech mogul Larry Ellison. The firm promised it would revolutionise the healthcare industry with a test that could detect conditions such as cancer and diabetes with only a few drops of blood. But these claims began to unravel in 2015 after a Wall Street Journal investigation reported that its core blood-testing technology did not work.
For nearly four months at trial, the jury of eight men and four women were presented with two starkly different accounts of the former self-made billionaire, whose downfall shook Silicon Valley. Calling some 30 witnesses, the prosecution sought to prove that Holmes knew the product she was selling to investors - a machine called the Edison - was a sham, but remained hell-bent on the firm's success.
Her company secretly relied on commercially available machines to run the tests, prosecutors said. At trial, multiple lab directors testified to telling Holmes about the flaws in Theranos' technology but being instructed to downplay their concerns. At the same time, they added , Holmes told investors the technology was operating as planned. Holmes "chose fraud over business failure. She chose to be dishonest with investors and patients", said prosecutor Jeff Schenk in closing arguments. "That choice was not only callous, it was criminal." The defence countered with descriptions of a dedicated and driven businesswoman, making waves in a male-dominated industry.
Testifying in her own defence, Holmes acknowledged mistakes in Theranos' operation, but maintained she never knowingly defrauded patients or investors. The defence also laid blame on Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani, her former business partner and ex-boyfriend. At trial Holmes accused Mr Balwani, 19 years her senior, of emotional and sexual abuse - allegations he denies.
--- End quote ---
So she is now claiming that it was Ramesh who knowingly defrauded the patients and investors despite being told by her own staff
--- Quote ---The defence countered with descriptions of a dedicated and driven businesswoman, making waves in a male-dominated industry.
--- End quote ---
I wonder what has that got to do with anything in the sentencing? Are they saying that it makes it right for it she did or trying to make the jury feel sorry for her?
Ed.Kloonk:
I don't think many people realize that subterfuge has always been this little one's way and always will be.
eti:
Yet again, as others have delighted in making VERY clear to me, in the past, this is a *technical* chat sub-forum; am I missing something here, as this seems to be about as off-topic as one could hope for.
Ed.Kloonk:
--- Quote from: eti on January 06, 2022, 05:17:35 am ---Yet again, as others have delighted in making VERY clear to me, in the past, this is a *technical* chat sub-forum; am I missing something here, as this seems to be about as off-topic as one could hope for.
--- End quote ---
I resisted commenting in your previous tantrum. I think the problem has to do with quantity of off-topic material from one poster versus a bit of side channel here and there.
Many of us have gotten pinged for it. Deal with it. Select more material the group will enjoy.
wilfred:
--- Quote from: eti on January 06, 2022, 05:17:35 am ---Yet again, as others have delighted in making VERY clear to me, in the past, this is a *technical* chat sub-forum; am I missing something here, as this seems to be about as off-topic as one could hope for.
--- End quote ---
Some threads will inevitably develop into a private bun-fight between two members, regardless of whether it is on-topic or not. Some were started with that specific intent. Topics that engage forum members interest and friendly participation were never a problem. I wouldn't worry to much about whether a thread is on topic if members enjoy participating. I would say most members can tell which threads are which.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version