3 ms·
The part that sort of gets me here is that given that she wasn’t convicted of patient harm (questionable, but that’s the verdict), I don’t have any real interes
by bpodgursky 4y ago
The part that sort of gets me here is that given that she wasn’t convicted of patient harm (questionable, but that’s the verdict), I don’t have any real interest in sending her to prison for defrauding investors.
The investors were wealthy morons who invested with 0 research on the technical feasibility of the company. They deserved what they got. Do some due diligence next time.
- LightG 4y agoInspirational. I know a lot of semi-wealthy morons who will invest. This idea can scale. Will you be my judge?
- s1artibartfast 4y agoBasically no amount of due diligence can protect against all out fraud. If ask for information and data but they provide lies and fake data, what do you expect?
- cudgy 4y agoAn audit from a third, independent party.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoAudit what? Fake books and data?
- cudgy 4y agoYes. Auditors should verify the books against third party sources. For example, inquire customers and vendors to verify transactions with them, verify actual bank records, verify fiduciary accounts, etc.
- mym1990 4y agoQuite the opposite, MORE people need to go to prison for fraud on this level, too often these people get off with a slap on the wrist, some house arrest..and they end up setting up shop somewhere else. You don't know every person that gave Theranos money, there is a very good chance there were some average people who got burned pretty badly.