5 ms·

Are you joking? >Under what crimes would you like them charged? Fraud, obviously. >What proof do you have to support the charges? They took investor money

Are you joking? >Under what crimes would you like them charged? Fraud, obviously. >What proof do you have to support the charges? They took investor money and made deals with partners like Walgreens based on a product that didn't work as claimed. Either it was an outright deception and they knew they were hawking bullshit, or they sincerely believed they could eventually deliver what they were promising, but in any case they lied to those investors and partners. But of course they will never go to jail as any of us would for this massive and blatant fraud, jail is for the little people.

jacquesm 8y ago
The problem with investors claiming fraud is that they would have to prove that they did proper due diligence and that is where the whole thing falls down. All Holmes & Co have to do is to claim that they thought it would work and that if there was a critical flaw they only became aware of it long after the investment was made. It is very hard for investors to recover anything from start-ups that fail and it is very hard to prove fraud when it might just as well be self-delusion. I don't doubt for a moment that it was fraud but proving that is another matter entirely.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > The problem with investors claiming fraud is that they would have to prove that they did proper due diligence and that is where the whole thing falls down. That may be an issue for civil fraud complaints by investors, but it has no bearing on any action by the government for criminal fraud, and this subthread was about crimes for which they should be imprisoned, not torts for which they should pay damages.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    Ah yes, good point, I totally mixed up the civil/criminal parts of this. Well, here's to hoping.
- trhway 8y ago
  > All Holmes & Co have to do is to claim that they thought it would work and that if there was a critical flaw they only became aware of it long after the investment was made. you probably missed (it was just on radio) how Holmes & Co showcased their tech by conspicuously loading samples into the machine and then leading the audience away while rushing the samples to Siemens hardware and presenting the results from it like it was produced by their own machine. Basically investors got a slew of hands of a birthday magician for 400M (though for that kind of money i think even Houdini would rise from the dead to do the show in your backyard)
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    Oh wow, that's another level entirely. I was not aware of this juicy detail either (see elsewhere in this thread for another whopper). That's more than just a little shady. Though 'fake it until you make it' gets thrown around all the time here.
  - pacaro 8y ago
    Sleight of hand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleight_of_hand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleight_of_hand

jacquesm 8y ago

The problem with investors claiming fraud is that they would have to prove that they did proper due diligence and that is where the whole thing falls down. All Holmes & Co have to do is to claim that they thought it would work and that if there was a critical flaw they only became aware of it long after the investment was made. It is very hard for investors to recover anything from start-ups that fail and it is very hard to prove fraud when it might just as well be self-delusion. I don't doubt for a moment that it was fraud but proving that is another matter entirely.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> The problem with investors claiming fraud is that they would have to prove that they did proper due diligence and that is where the whole thing falls down. That may be an issue for civil fraud complaints by investors, but it has no bearing on any action by the government for criminal fraud, and this subthread was about crimes for which they should be imprisoned, not torts for which they should pay damages.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  Ah yes, good point, I totally mixed up the civil/criminal parts of this. Well, here's to hoping.
trhway 8y ago
> All Holmes & Co have to do is to claim that they thought it would work and that if there was a critical flaw they only became aware of it long after the investment was made. you probably missed (it was just on radio) how Holmes & Co showcased their tech by conspicuously loading samples into the machine and then leading the audience away while rushing the samples to Siemens hardware and presenting the results from it like it was produced by their own machine. Basically investors got a slew of hands of a birthday magician for 400M (though for that kind of money i think even Houdini would rise from the dead to do the show in your backyard)
- jacquesm 8y ago
  Oh wow, that's another level entirely. I was not aware of this juicy detail either (see elsewhere in this thread for another whopper). That's more than just a little shady. Though 'fake it until you make it' gets thrown around all the time here.
- pacaro 8y ago
  Sleight of hand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleight_of_hand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleight_of_hand