5 ms·

So, here's what I sincerely don't get: why is she allowed to spend a bunch of money on her criminal defense while there are civil cases working their way throug

So, here's what I sincerely don't get: why is she allowed to spend a bunch of money on her criminal defense while there are civil cases working their way through the courts, and after she's basically admitted she doesn't have enough money to defend herself in both cases? I understand it would be probably unconstitutional to delay criminal proceedings until after the civil proceedings. But can't the judge in the civil proceedings do something to prevent all the money from being spent on her criminal defense? It seems morally wrong that someone can commit fraud and then spend the money obtained via that fraud defending themselves against the state before having to settle up with the people who they defrauded.

chrisweekly 7y ago
Upvoted to counterbalance the downvotes for what I perceive as a legit question
- throwawayjava 7y ago
  Oh, pretty much every single comment I make gets at least one immediate downvote as soon as I post. I assume I got in a flamewar with the wrong person some years back or something. Don't really care about internet points on VC-sponsored forums, but it'd be nice to get an answer to this question from someone who knows something about law, though, so thanks :)
  - potiuper 7y ago
    It seems like bot(s) that is/are attempting to prevent other users from getting the ability to downvote/500 points. Flaw with hn and disincentive to post here.
    - heyflyguy 7y ago
      I hop you're right, I've been taking that very personal!
    - tempestn 7y ago
      Perhaps this sort of unfounded conspiracy theorizing simply attracts legitimate downvotes.
      - throwawayjava 7y ago
        Perhaps, alhtough "person who you get an an argument with intermittently downvotes you posts" isn't exactly a "conspiracy theory". It's just a thing that does happen in internet communities, and that anyone who has moderated one has experience mediating. But, it's best to be certain! To ensure my downvotes are truly deserved: my bet is on the temporarily embarrassed millionaires taking offense to the last sentence of my prior post ;-) (i.e., /s :) )
      - potiuper 7y ago
        Given the ease of creating accounts here, no evidence against sockpuppet accounts, and the general understanding of Sybil attacks makes the claim that the behavior is unfounded ignorant of reality.
LegitShady 7y ago
because then people could potentially sue others to sabotage a criminal defense. I'm not sure to what extent her finances are monitored by law enforcement and the various judges.
nradov 7y ago
Her creditors and the plaintiffs in the civil case could file a motion to freeze her assets. I don't know whether they have attempted to do so.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- onetimemanytime 7y ago
  If they could, and if it beneficial to them, it's safe to bet that they have filed. Unless it's Cousin Vinny LLP
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rootusrootus 7y ago
> morally wrong that someone can commit fraud Prior to being convicted, she is innocent. Hard to use that as a justification to kneecap her ability to defend herself because you already believe she will eventually be found guilty.
manigandham 7y ago
> "commit fraud" This technically hasn't been proven yet, that's what the criminal trial is for. If you take away that assumption, then what would be your argument? People are allowed to allocate their money however they want. You can say that she's committing another fraud, but that would be yet another case. Maybe there's an injunction that can be filed but I doubt there's enough precedent for it.
- throwawayjava 7y ago
  > If you take away that assumption, then what would be your argument? The argument is that the civil and criminal proceedings are considering largely similar statements of fact. The burden of proof is lower in the civil case, of course, but the facts under consideration are the same. Or course, slightly different exact statements are being considered but with a substantively similar underlying truth claim: theranos was a fraud. The real point is, it's hard to believe she would ever win the criminal proceedings and lose the civil proceedings. To me, it would make sense for the courts to insist that the civil proceeding is resolved first when the criminal proceeding is considering largely the same statements of fact but with a higher burden of proof. Why? Because the people the criminal code is supposed to be protecting are largely the same people who are suing, and those folks would probably prefer getting some money back. The problem is that this would probably violate the sixth amendment (as is mentioned in my initial post). So, again, constitutionally, I understand why. This just seems like a bug rather than a feature. So, this isn't about "innocent until proven guilty". This is about "speedy trial". I think one possibility, moving forward, is the following workflow: 1. Federal prosecutors communicate intent to prosecute, and provide a list of victims purportedly effected 2. Any effected victims may file civil suits 2a. Judges/congress/state legislative bodies exempt commitments to defense funds for future possible criminal cases from bankruptcy 3. civil cases resolved 4. criminal charges filed and proceedings begin We test the limits of every amendment that applies to non-corporate-executives, so why not the sixth in fraud proceedings against C suites as well?
  - manigandham 7y ago
    They're completely separate cases with different courts, rules, judges, and penalties. Neither has jurisdiction over the other. Having "the courts insist that the civil proceeding is resolved first" is not a choice for either of them to make. This firewall between criminal and civil isn't a "bug", it's a fundamental part of the justice system. What is a "future possible criminal case"? Why would there be another criminal case? And if there was, what does this court have to do with it? You're still presuming she's guilty because there's no grounds for interfering with an innocent person's finances that may affect their ability to defend themselves in court or acting on a case based on the assumed outcome of a different one.

chrisweekly 7y ago

Upvoted to counterbalance the downvotes for what I perceive as a legit question

throwawayjava 7y ago
Oh, pretty much every single comment I make gets at least one immediate downvote as soon as I post. I assume I got in a flamewar with the wrong person some years back or something. Don't really care about internet points on VC-sponsored forums, but it'd be nice to get an answer to this question from someone who knows something about law, though, so thanks :)
- potiuper 7y ago
  It seems like bot(s) that is/are attempting to prevent other users from getting the ability to downvote/500 points. Flaw with hn and disincentive to post here.
  - heyflyguy 7y ago
    I hop you're right, I've been taking that very personal!
  - tempestn 7y ago
    Perhaps this sort of unfounded conspiracy theorizing simply attracts legitimate downvotes.
    - throwawayjava 7y ago
      Perhaps, alhtough "person who you get an an argument with intermittently downvotes you posts" isn't exactly a "conspiracy theory". It's just a thing that does happen in internet communities, and that anyone who has moderated one has experience mediating. But, it's best to be certain! To ensure my downvotes are truly deserved: my bet is on the temporarily embarrassed millionaires taking offense to the last sentence of my prior post ;-) (i.e., /s :) )
    - potiuper 7y ago
      Given the ease of creating accounts here, no evidence against sockpuppet accounts, and the general understanding of Sybil attacks makes the claim that the behavior is unfounded ignorant of reality.

LegitShady 7y ago

because then people could potentially sue others to sabotage a criminal defense. I'm not sure to what extent her finances are monitored by law enforcement and the various judges.

nradov 7y ago

Her creditors and the plaintiffs in the civil case could file a motion to freeze her assets. I don't know whether they have attempted to do so.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
onetimemanytime 7y ago
If they could, and if it beneficial to them, it's safe to bet that they have filed. Unless it's Cousin Vinny LLP

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

rootusrootus 7y ago

> morally wrong that someone can commit fraud Prior to being convicted, she is innocent. Hard to use that as a justification to kneecap her ability to defend herself because you already believe she will eventually be found guilty.

manigandham 7y ago

> "commit fraud" This technically hasn't been proven yet, that's what the criminal trial is for. If you take away that assumption, then what would be your argument? People are allowed to allocate their money however they want. You can say that she's committing another fraud, but that would be yet another case. Maybe there's an injunction that can be filed but I doubt there's enough precedent for it.

throwawayjava 7y ago
> If you take away that assumption, then what would be your argument? The argument is that the civil and criminal proceedings are considering largely similar statements of fact. The burden of proof is lower in the civil case, of course, but the facts under consideration are the same. Or course, slightly different exact statements are being considered but with a substantively similar underlying truth claim: theranos was a fraud. The real point is, it's hard to believe she would ever win the criminal proceedings and lose the civil proceedings. To me, it would make sense for the courts to insist that the civil proceeding is resolved first when the criminal proceeding is considering largely the same statements of fact but with a higher burden of proof. Why? Because the people the criminal code is supposed to be protecting are largely the same people who are suing, and those folks would probably prefer getting some money back. The problem is that this would probably violate the sixth amendment (as is mentioned in my initial post). So, again, constitutionally, I understand why. This just seems like a bug rather than a feature. So, this isn't about "innocent until proven guilty". This is about "speedy trial". I think one possibility, moving forward, is the following workflow: 1. Federal prosecutors communicate intent to prosecute, and provide a list of victims purportedly effected 2. Any effected victims may file civil suits 2a. Judges/congress/state legislative bodies exempt commitments to defense funds for future possible criminal cases from bankruptcy 3. civil cases resolved 4. criminal charges filed and proceedings begin We test the limits of every amendment that applies to non-corporate-executives, so why not the sixth in fraud proceedings against C suites as well?
- manigandham 7y ago
  They're completely separate cases with different courts, rules, judges, and penalties. Neither has jurisdiction over the other. Having "the courts insist that the civil proceeding is resolved first" is not a choice for either of them to make. This firewall between criminal and civil isn't a "bug", it's a fundamental part of the justice system. What is a "future possible criminal case"? Why would there be another criminal case? And if there was, what does this court have to do with it? You're still presuming she's guilty because there's no grounds for interfering with an innocent person's finances that may affect their ability to defend themselves in court or acting on a case based on the assumed outcome of a different one.