3 ms·

I wonder if she was knowingly committing fraud for the purpose of amassing wealth, or if she genuinely believed they would be able to deliver if they could keep

• duxup 7y ago
  The thing is they had... nothing. They weren't anywhere near what they claimed, and used competitors equipment to fake their own results at times. They had gone nowhere, made no progress. They couldn't provide the results with their own machines any better than anyone else, let alone with the tiny amounts of blood they claimed.
  • gota 7y ago
    The fraud comes from the distinction between "We _will_ be able to X" and "We _are_ able to X" They couldn't do things they claimed they could to lure investments. That's fraud. Also; I wonder how much the release of HBOs "Out for Blood in Sillicon Valley" affects public perception and the judgment/rulings, if at all
• PhilWright 7y ago
  It is more likely to be a slippery slope where you begin completely believing your technology will work and then over time it becomes more and more fraudulent. At the beginning I think she completely believed the technology would work. After a year and no progress, what do you do? You raise more money and double down. Fast forward another couple of years, do you admit you were wrong and tell the investors the bad news? Do you take the humiliation of the failure? In her case she doubled down again and although must have known by now it would never work, she carried on with the pretence. Like a kid caught in a lie keeps on making more lies to keep the façade going.
• dbuder 7y ago
  She had to know deep down fairly early on it was all air, that's the crime. She's now using the old tactic of distancing the trail from the events.