2 ms·
> [She wasn’t] really being charged with [wire fraud with regard to] patients Unless the word "really" is doing some heavy lifting here, this is incorrect. The
by alanh 5y ago
> [She wasn’t] really being charged with [wire fraud with regard to] patients
Unless the word "really" is doing some heavy lifting here, this is incorrect. There were multiple counts directly and specifically related to defrauding patients. These counts came back not guilty, but they were, in fact, charged, and customers testified in court in support of these charges.
- BoardsOfCanada 5y agoThe articles says "This case was specifically about what Holmes told Theranos investors, although her lies also impacted partners and patients" which I took as the patients claims were not part of this trial, but maybe they were?
- bryanrasmussen 5y agoI think I would try to have them as separate trials.
- rossdavidh 5y agoYou're correct, I saw that all of the counts were wire fraud or conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and didn't realize that they included wire fraud...of patients. I have to think, though, that the fact that it was such an odd charge in relation to patients, had a part in why those charges didn't stick. I think wire fraud in relation to investors succeeded because it was a much more accurate description of the act involved. But you're correct, some of the counts that didn't stick were wire fraud related to patients.