4 ms·

It's not particularly surprising, if you assume that the jury was essentially looking for a specific, traceable line between representations from Elizabeth Holm

It's not particularly surprising, if you assume that the jury was essentially looking for a specific, traceable line between representations from Elizabeth Holmes herself (and nobody else) and the subsequent payment as a necessary element of fraud. (Whether or not the jury was doing so could be guessed from reading the jury instructions, which I haven't done). Being found guilty of defrauding investors in that light is easy because Holmes did specific acts, such as basically saying "we're endorsed by $BIG_PHARMA" knowing that they weren't, as part of her investor pitch--that's a pretty unambiguous traceable injury. But tracing anything she herself said to getting a random schmoe on the street to take a blood test... again, if you think fraud requires that specific act, it's not hard to see why someone would vote not guilty there. Of course, I would still have liked to see her proclaimed guilty on fraud for the test results. But as abhorrent as her actions may have been, they may not have necessarily climbed the bar into illegality.

michael1999 5y ago
This diffusion of responsibility in corporations drives me crazy. A CEO can create a crimogenic environment, and as long as there are enough layers of management or outsourcers, you can't pin the specific crime on anyone, and you can't jail a corporation.
gkoberger 5y ago
I agree with everything you said, but I think the person you're replying to is less upset at the prosecutors/jury, and more upset about the laws in the first place. They protect the rich and powerful, and don't worry about the average person getting hurt.
- saurik 5y ago
  I maybe agree that that's what that comment probably should have been focussed on, but they did explicitly cal out the "prosecutors" for having "fucked up" getting the conviction.
- piaste 5y ago
  In this case it seems to be a matter of distance, not power. Imagine that, rather than the CEO making shit up, the case was about a lowly lab technician who faked results out of laziness or recklessness. Even though his fraud ultimately impacted the patients, he would probably still get convicted for defrauding his boss or the company he directly worked for, not the patients he never met or knew.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    I think you have to look at the client side of the power equation. Nobody in the government is going to stick their neck out because a few voiceless plebs may have got the wrong blood test results at Walmart. If your client was a wealthy person or large corporation and you knowingly lied to them about the performance of your product or service which caused them damages, would you get charged?
  - ivanhoe 5y ago
    There's a difference, lab tech would impact individuals, but he wouldn't make false claims to the general public as the company's main selling point. Here we have someone basically selling snake oil to people, and still she was found guilt only for hurting her investors. Ultimately, does this mean that the next fraudster will get away with it as long as they keep their investors in the loop about the lies?
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > There's a difference, lab tech would impact individuals, but he wouldn't make false claims to the general public as the company's main selling point. But when it's the CEO who does it, doesn't she do both? I mean, those individuals who get the fake test results are also members of the general public.
    - codeflo 5y ago
      Unfortunately, they’ll get away with it as long as the company value goes up. As long as investors make money, who told whom what is irrelevant.
    - 5y ago
Pxtl 5y ago
From what I've read, patients were prevented from testifying about the impact of the damage caused by the incorrect test results. That means life-changing pain and suffering was concealed from the jury.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Not true: here is one example of testimony: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/17/theranos-patient-says-blood-test-came-back-with-false-positive-for-hiv.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/17/theranos-patient-says-blood-...
  - Pxtl 5y ago
    Ah, thanks for the info. My mistake.

michael1999 5y ago

This diffusion of responsibility in corporations drives me crazy. A CEO can create a crimogenic environment, and as long as there are enough layers of management or outsourcers, you can't pin the specific crime on anyone, and you can't jail a corporation.

gkoberger 5y ago

I agree with everything you said, but I think the person you're replying to is less upset at the prosecutors/jury, and more upset about the laws in the first place. They protect the rich and powerful, and don't worry about the average person getting hurt.

saurik 5y ago
I maybe agree that that's what that comment probably should have been focussed on, but they did explicitly cal out the "prosecutors" for having "fucked up" getting the conviction.
piaste 5y ago
In this case it seems to be a matter of distance, not power. Imagine that, rather than the CEO making shit up, the case was about a lowly lab technician who faked results out of laziness or recklessness. Even though his fraud ultimately impacted the patients, he would probably still get convicted for defrauding his boss or the company he directly worked for, not the patients he never met or knew.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  I think you have to look at the client side of the power equation. Nobody in the government is going to stick their neck out because a few voiceless plebs may have got the wrong blood test results at Walmart. If your client was a wealthy person or large corporation and you knowingly lied to them about the performance of your product or service which caused them damages, would you get charged?
- ivanhoe 5y ago
  There's a difference, lab tech would impact individuals, but he wouldn't make false claims to the general public as the company's main selling point. Here we have someone basically selling snake oil to people, and still she was found guilt only for hurting her investors. Ultimately, does this mean that the next fraudster will get away with it as long as they keep their investors in the loop about the lies?
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > There's a difference, lab tech would impact individuals, but he wouldn't make false claims to the general public as the company's main selling point. But when it's the CEO who does it, doesn't she do both? I mean, those individuals who get the fake test results are also members of the general public.
  - codeflo 5y ago
    Unfortunately, they’ll get away with it as long as the company value goes up. As long as investors make money, who told whom what is irrelevant.
  - 5y ago

Pxtl 5y ago

From what I've read, patients were prevented from testifying about the impact of the damage caused by the incorrect test results. That means life-changing pain and suffering was concealed from the jury.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
Not true: here is one example of testimony: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/17/theranos-patient-says-blood-test-came-back-with-false-positive-for-hiv.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/17/theranos-patient-says-blood-...
- Pxtl 5y ago
  Ah, thanks for the info. My mistake.