5 ms·
regarding her victims. She has only been convicted for defrauding powerful investors like Shultz, Murdoch, Kissinger, etc. who failed to do due diligence. She
by option 3y ago
regarding her victims. She has only been convicted for defrauding powerful investors like Shultz, Murdoch, Kissinger, etc. who failed to do due diligence.
She has not been convicted for defrauding customers/patients or her employees.
Tells much about current state of justice system… Well at least she was stopped.
- RodgerTheGreat 3y ago"That most heinous of crimes, theft of money [from rich people]."
- impute 3y agoThe same thing happened with the Fyre Festival. The organizers didn't face consequences from defrauding the people they sold tickets to. They face consequences from defrauding the investors.
- StanislavPetrov 3y agoThat's why they put the hammer down on Bernie Madoff - he stole from the ultra wealthy. If he had been robbing the little people he would have, at most, spent a couple of years at Club Fed.
- sigstoat 3y agohow much effort should the prosecutors spend on prosecuting more challenging charges, when they had a bunch of easy ones? are they morally obligated to prosecute every single charge that might apply?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hn_throwaway_99 3y agoI hate this take because I hear it all the time and it's simply incorrect, at least in relation to Holmes' case. In a court of law you need to prove your case, with evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence that Holmes lied to investors for the purposes of getting money, and that she knew she was lying and did it purposefully, was undeniable - there were too many smoking guns. The evidence that she knew she was defrauding patients was always less clear cut. Besides, the prosecutors did try mightily to convict her of crimes against patients. Are you saying the 12 randomly selected jurors who found her not guilty of these crimes are in cahoots with "the current state of the justice system"?