6 ms·

From the Financial Times: Here's the nuance of her formula: Commit fraud as an attractive, well-connected WASP woman who happened to be neighbors with well-co

From the Financial Times: Here's the nuance of her formula: Commit fraud as an attractive, well-connected WASP woman who happened to be neighbors with well-connected VC Draper family. Tell a great story: Stanford drop-out who studied Chinese, afraid of needles, wants to help the world. Leverage Silicon Valley connections to pull in other really big fish, such as Kissinger, et al, who would be really, really embarrassed that they were so hoodwinked by an ingenue. Use that cognitive dissonance to raise more and more money, while having no technology whatsoever. Get even more and bigger fish such as Biden to vouch for you. Wrap your company in total mysterious secrecy. Declare anyone against you as against women in business. Works like a charm and will happen again in the future.

jedberg 9y ago
> Works like a charm I dunno, I'd say it kinda failed here.
- tenpies 9y ago
  I'd say it worked fantastically. For the sake of timing lets compare Shkreli and Holmes. She committed a much larger fraud and lost people huge amounts of money. She is spending exactly zero days in prison. She is getting a $500,000 fine - which Theranos is probably paying for - and a slap in the wrist[1]. Meanwhile Shkreli - who's "victims" lost zero money - is going to spend 7 years in jail and has lost at least $10 million because the government decided to take it over. I would love to see people complaining about gender gaps addressing the huge gender gap in our justice system, because cases like this are a slap in the face. --- [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-theranos-sec/theranos-and-its-founder-settle-u-s-fraud-charges-sec-idUSKCN1GQ2HC https://www.reuters.com/article/us-theranos-sec/theranos-and...
  - AlexCoventry 9y ago
    It would be hard to punish Holmes worse than Shrkeli at this point. 7 years in a male prison has much more potential to destroy a life than 7 years in a female one.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    > She committed a much larger fraud and lost people huge amounts of money. She is spending exactly zero days in prison. She is getting a $500,000 fine - which Theranos is probably paying for - and a slap in the wrist[1]. 1. Holmes is not out of the hot water yet. DOJ could still press charges and seek jail time. 2. What makes you think Theranos is paying her fine? 3. Holmes also loses 18.9 million (probably worthless) shares. > Meanwhile Shkreli - who's "victims" lost zero money - is going to spend 7 years in jail and has lost at least $10 million because the government decided to take it over. 1. "no one was hurt" is never a valid legal defense. Not if you break into a company's networks. Not if you break into someone's house. Not if you sell drugs. And not if you commit fraud. In the case of fraud laws, the reason for this is actually obvious and rational: deterrence. No one ever thinks they're going to lose it all. If we only punished fraud that didn't work out in the end, the law would not have its intended deterrent effect. However, "no one was hurt" can act as a mitigating factor in sentencing! However... 2. Character and remorse also matter in sentencing. As does settling. Who knows how much lighter Shkreli's sentence could've been if he settled. Or at least managed to just go home and shut up during sentencing. Some of these observations might be troubling (e.g., being punished for exercising your right to a trial; going to jail for an extra year because you're an asshole in public) but they aren't gender issues. > I would love to see people complaining about gender gaps addressing the huge gender gap in our justice system, because cases like this are a slap in the face. This is a real problem [1]. But if you want to push the dial on this, maybe find someone other than Shkreli as your victim figure? (Also, the best way of closing this gap is probably less time for men, not more time for women.) [1] https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_g...
    - perl4ever 9y ago
      Saying it's "obvious and rational" that we want to deter people from committing fraud is not a good defense of those involved with Theranos. I say this, not as someone who will ever invest in private companies, but as someone who occasionally gets blood tests. I think it's extremely misguided to regard fairness to criminals or defending them as victims as the goal here - the important thing is, as you seem to sort of agree, to deter bad actors and encourage good ones.
  - oldgradstudent 9y ago
    Well, Shkreli also disrespected the Wu-Tang Clan.[1] [1] https://www.spin.com/2017/08/martin-shkreli-jury-selection-transcript-wu-tang-clan/ https://www.spin.com/2017/08/martin-shkreli-jury-selection-t...
- lotsofpulp 9y ago
  As far as I've read, it only failed because of a whistleblower. Overall, she was able to waste quite a few resources, as well as steal taxpayer money, without any real consequences (so far). I would bet she's probably better off having done what she did than if she had followed the rules.
nylonstrung 9y ago
>Declare anyone against you as against women in business. ie Sophia Amoruso, who ran her company into bankruptcy and immediately jumped into running a media company and having a Netflix show about women in business
- sesutton 9y ago
  Your timeline is off. The show was ordered several months before the company went bankrupt.
shaki-dora 9y ago
Be a man: “what a scammer” Be a woman: “this woman used her gender to scam”
- kmc059000 9y ago
  Relevant XKCD https://xkcd.com/385/ https://xkcd.com/385/
- exolymph 9y ago
  I mean, in this case, she literally did use her gender as part of the cynical narrative.
- throwaway1748 9y ago
  No, be Elizabeth Holmes and Tim Draper and use gender as a means to dismiss valid investigative reporting from the Wall Street Journal. And yeah, bad actors will sometimes use accusations of sexism / racism / etc-isms to silence those speaking the truth about them.
isolli 9y ago
That's an interesting interpretation. But in that logic, how come she never sold any of her shares? > Holmes has never sold any of her Theranos stock. https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2018/comp-pr2018-41-theranos-holmes.pdf https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2018/comp-pr2018-4...

jedberg 9y ago

> Works like a charm I dunno, I'd say it kinda failed here.

tenpies 9y ago
I'd say it worked fantastically. For the sake of timing lets compare Shkreli and Holmes. She committed a much larger fraud and lost people huge amounts of money. She is spending exactly zero days in prison. She is getting a $500,000 fine - which Theranos is probably paying for - and a slap in the wrist[1]. Meanwhile Shkreli - who's "victims" lost zero money - is going to spend 7 years in jail and has lost at least $10 million because the government decided to take it over. I would love to see people complaining about gender gaps addressing the huge gender gap in our justice system, because cases like this are a slap in the face. --- [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-theranos-sec/theranos-and-its-founder-settle-u-s-fraud-charges-sec-idUSKCN1GQ2HC https://www.reuters.com/article/us-theranos-sec/theranos-and...
- AlexCoventry 9y ago
  It would be hard to punish Holmes worse than Shrkeli at this point. 7 years in a male prison has much more potential to destroy a life than 7 years in a female one.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > She committed a much larger fraud and lost people huge amounts of money. She is spending exactly zero days in prison. She is getting a $500,000 fine - which Theranos is probably paying for - and a slap in the wrist[1]. 1. Holmes is not out of the hot water yet. DOJ could still press charges and seek jail time. 2. What makes you think Theranos is paying her fine? 3. Holmes also loses 18.9 million (probably worthless) shares. > Meanwhile Shkreli - who's "victims" lost zero money - is going to spend 7 years in jail and has lost at least $10 million because the government decided to take it over. 1. "no one was hurt" is never a valid legal defense. Not if you break into a company's networks. Not if you break into someone's house. Not if you sell drugs. And not if you commit fraud. In the case of fraud laws, the reason for this is actually obvious and rational: deterrence. No one ever thinks they're going to lose it all. If we only punished fraud that didn't work out in the end, the law would not have its intended deterrent effect. However, "no one was hurt" can act as a mitigating factor in sentencing! However... 2. Character and remorse also matter in sentencing. As does settling. Who knows how much lighter Shkreli's sentence could've been if he settled. Or at least managed to just go home and shut up during sentencing. Some of these observations might be troubling (e.g., being punished for exercising your right to a trial; going to jail for an extra year because you're an asshole in public) but they aren't gender issues. > I would love to see people complaining about gender gaps addressing the huge gender gap in our justice system, because cases like this are a slap in the face. This is a real problem [1]. But if you want to push the dial on this, maybe find someone other than Shkreli as your victim figure? (Also, the best way of closing this gap is probably less time for men, not more time for women.) [1] https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_g...
  - perl4ever 9y ago
    Saying it's "obvious and rational" that we want to deter people from committing fraud is not a good defense of those involved with Theranos. I say this, not as someone who will ever invest in private companies, but as someone who occasionally gets blood tests. I think it's extremely misguided to regard fairness to criminals or defending them as victims as the goal here - the important thing is, as you seem to sort of agree, to deter bad actors and encourage good ones.
- oldgradstudent 9y ago
  Well, Shkreli also disrespected the Wu-Tang Clan.[1] [1] https://www.spin.com/2017/08/martin-shkreli-jury-selection-transcript-wu-tang-clan/ https://www.spin.com/2017/08/martin-shkreli-jury-selection-t...
lotsofpulp 9y ago
As far as I've read, it only failed because of a whistleblower. Overall, she was able to waste quite a few resources, as well as steal taxpayer money, without any real consequences (so far). I would bet she's probably better off having done what she did than if she had followed the rules.

nylonstrung 9y ago

>Declare anyone against you as against women in business. ie Sophia Amoruso, who ran her company into bankruptcy and immediately jumped into running a media company and having a Netflix show about women in business

sesutton 9y ago
Your timeline is off. The show was ordered several months before the company went bankrupt.

shaki-dora 9y ago

Be a man: “what a scammer” Be a woman: “this woman used her gender to scam”

kmc059000 9y ago
Relevant XKCD https://xkcd.com/385/ https://xkcd.com/385/
exolymph 9y ago
I mean, in this case, she literally did use her gender as part of the cynical narrative.
throwaway1748 9y ago
No, be Elizabeth Holmes and Tim Draper and use gender as a means to dismiss valid investigative reporting from the Wall Street Journal. And yeah, bad actors will sometimes use accusations of sexism / racism / etc-isms to silence those speaking the truth about them.

isolli 9y ago

That's an interesting interpretation. But in that logic, how come she never sold any of her shares? > Holmes has never sold any of her Theranos stock. https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2018/comp-pr2018-41-theranos-holmes.pdf https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2018/comp-pr2018-4...