Holmes to face maximum of 80 years in prison when she’s sentenced in September:
While she is likely to receive prison time for defrauding investors, she will be able to spend the next eight and a half months out on bail. She faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison for each of the four counts she was convicted of, though it’s unlikely that she’ll be sentenced to all 80 years.
Holmes has been out on bail since June 2018, when she and alleged co-conspirator Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani were charged. Both were released after posting $500,000 bonds and surrendering their passports. Now that Holmes has been convicted and is awaiting sentencing, her bond will have to be secured by property. Their trials have been repeatedly pushed back, first because of the COVID pandemic and then later because Holmes gave birth.
Part of the reason Holmes’ sentencing has been postponed is because the government still has to prosecute its case against Balwani.
Previously:
2022/01/04 - Elizabeth Holmes Found Guilty on 4 of 11 Charges
2020/09/13 - Judge in Theranos Fraud Case Orders 14-Hour Psychological Test for Holmes
2019/07/01 - Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes to Face Trial Next Year on Fraud Charges
2018/09/06 - Theranos to Dissolve in a Pool of Blood
2018/06/17 - Elizabeth Holmes Steps Down as Theranos CEO as DoJ Levels Charges
2018/03/15 - Blood Unicorn Fairy Tale: Theranos Founder Charged With Fraud
2017/12/24 - Theranos Given Indirect Lifeline From Softbank
2016/10/06 - Theranos Lays Off 340, Closes Labs and "Wellness Centers"
2016/08/03 - Theranos Introduces New Product to Distract from Scandal
Related Stories
The embattled biotech firm Theranos has introduced a new blood testing product, as its CEO deflected criticism of the company's previous blood tests:
Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes made an appearance at a scientific convention today, but it wasn't to allay the many concerns about the company's previous blood tests, the results of which were thrown out earlier this year. Holmes also chose not to address the federal criminal and civil investigations against her company, instead announcing a new Theranos product: a blood-testing kit that could serve as the successor to its controversial Edison machines.
Speaking at the the annual meeting for the American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Holmes said the new machine — called the Theranos Sample Processing Unit, or "miniLab" — was the size of a computer printer, and will be able to run a battery of tests on just 160 microliters of blood taken from a pricked finger. She showed clinical data that detailed 11 tests miniLab can run on blood samples, including one for the Zika virus, but the company says that it can run up to 40 tests. A source told The Wall Street Journal that so many tests could not be run on the same blood, and that patients would need to provide three or four samples.
Theranos's troubles continue with the layoffs of about half its workforce:
Theranos is closing its labs and wellness centers, CEO Elizabeth Holmes announced today in a post on the company blog. And this isn't a temporary closure: the "approximately" 340 employees running them are out of a job. [...] The company pivoted away from working on its closely held "nanotainer" technology to a "miniLab" in August. The boxy device — unveiled at the American Association for Clinical Chemistry conference — collects small samples of blood and urine and then uploads them to a centralized system for further analysis. And it's a far cry from what the company, once valued at $9 billion, set out to do. According to several experts whom TechCrunch spoke to at the unveiling, it might not be very innovative, either. Although Theranos didn't want its new device referred to as a "lab on a chip," that's essentially what these experts said the miniLab was. And that has been done.
The new device hinges largely on FDA approval — something Holmes said she'd hoped to fast-track under the emergency use authorization (EUA) for Zika detectors. That plan didn't go so well, however. The FDA denied Theranos approval after finding the company failed to use proper patient safety protocols. [...] The news Theranos is shuttering its labs and wellness centers and laying off nearly half its workforce comes after a series of shocking revelations over the past year involving faulty test results and improperly trained workers. The company is now facing numerous lawsuits, was forced to shut down it's California lab facility, lost its main partner Walgreens and was subject to a Congressional inquiry. Finally in July regulators banned Holmes from stepping foot in her own labs.
Previously: Theranos Introduces New Product to Distract from Scandal
Theranos gets $100 million in debt financing to carry it through 2018, with some caveats
Theranos has secured $100 million in debt financing. Yes, someone gave the blood testing company known for handing out questionable test results money.
First reported by Business Insider, the company reportedly told investors it had secured the money from Fortress Investment Group, a New York-based private equity firm that was acquired by Softbank earlier this year.
Of course, this is debt financing, not equity and Theranos will surely need it as it has been bleeding money, laying off more than half its workforce this year and trying to come up with ways to keep it afloat.
Previously: Theranos Introduces New Product to Distract from Scandal
Theranos Lays Off 340, Closes Labs and "Wellness Centers"
The black turtleneck-wearing founder of Theranos has been accused of swindling investors out of $700 million for blood-testing technology that amounted to smoke and mirrors. However, Elizabeth Holmes will only have to pay a $500,000 fine and surrender millions of worthless shares:
The Blood Unicorn Theranos Was Just a Fairy Tale
[...] Securities and Exchange Commission today brought fraud charges against Holmes, Theranos and its former president, Sunny Balwani, and its complaint alleges pretty strongly that the investors were just as bamboozled as everybody else. In fact, Theranos made direct use of its positive press to raise money: It "sent investors a binder of background materials," which included "articles and profiles about Theranos, including the 2013 and 2014 articles from The Wall Street Journal, Wired, and Fortune that were written after Holmes provided them with interviews" and that included her misleading claims about the state of Theranos's technology. She also repeated those claims to investors directly: "For instance, Holmes and Balwani told one investor that Theranos' proprietary analyzer could process over 1,000 Current Procedural Terminology ('CPT') codes and that Theranos had developed a technological solution for an additional 300 CPT codes," even though "Theranos' analyzers never performed comprehensive testing or processed 1,000 CPT codes in its clinical lab," and in fact never processed more than 12 tests on its TSPU. And Theranos would even do a little pantomime blood-draw demonstration directly on the investors:
This initial meeting was often followed by a purported demonstration of Theranos' proprietary analyzers, the TSPU, and the miniLab. In several instances, potential investors would be taken by Holmes and Balwani to a different room to view Theranos' desktop computer-like analyzers. A phlebotomist would arrive to draw their blood through fingerstick, using a nanotainer, a Theranos-developed collection device. Then the sample was either inserted into the TSPU or taken away for processing. Based on what they saw, potential investors believed that Theranos had tested their blood on either an earlier-generation TSPU or the miniLab. As Holmes knew, or was reckless in not knowing, however, Theranos often actually tested their blood on third-party analyzers, because Theranos could not conduct all of the tests it offered prospective investors on its proprietary analyzers.
Also at The New York Times, TechCrunch, and Time.
Previously: Theranos Introduces New Product to Distract from Scandal
Theranos Lays Off 340, Closes Labs and "Wellness Centers"
Theranos Given Indirect Lifeline From Softbank
Submitted via IRC for BoyceMagooglyMonkey
Elizabeth Holmes steps down as Theranos CEO as DOJ levels charges
CNBC is reporting that Elizabeth Holmes has stepped down from her position as CEO of Theranos and the Department of Justice has indicted her on alleged wire fraud. Both the company and Holmes have been embroiled in scandal following reports that the blood tests it claimed to be working on weren't actually effective. Earlier this year, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Holmes and Theranos with fraud.
[...] Along with Holmes, Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani, former president of Theranos, is being charged by the DOJ as well. Both Holmes and Balwani appeared before US Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen today where they were arraigned on nine counts of wire fraud and two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. [...] CNBC reports that Holmes will still chair Theranos' board and the company's general counsel, David Taylor, has been appointed CEO. If convicted, Holmes and Balwani face a maximum prison sentence of 20 years, a $250,000 fine and restitution for each count of wire fraud.
Theranos, Blood-Testing Company Plagued By Scandal, Says It Will Dissolve
Theranos — the Silicon Valley blood-testing startup whose former top executives are accused of carrying out a massive, years-long fraud — is shutting down.
David Taylor, who became CEO in June, said Theranos will dissolve after it attempts to pay creditors with its remaining cash. The news was first reported by The Wall Street Journal, which published the letter.
The letter explains that the company "intends to enter into an assignment for the benefit of creditors." This arrangement would allow for all of Theranos' assets, other than its intellectual property, to be assigned to a third party in trust for the company's creditors. The company says it has about $5 million remaining in cash.
Previously: Theranos Introduces New Product to Distract from Scandal
Theranos Lays Off 340, Closes Labs and "Wellness Centers"
Theranos Given Indirect Lifeline From Softbank
Blood Unicorn Fairy Tale: Theranos Founder Charged With Fraud
Elizabeth Holmes Steps Down as Theranos CEO as DoJ Levels Charges
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes will go on trial next summer
Elizabeth Holmes, the disgraced founder of blood-testing startup Theranos, will officially go to trial in San Jose next year, according to the US District Judge Edward J. Davila of the Northern District of California.
[...] According to TechCrunch, the trial will begin in August 2020, with jury selection beginning on July 28th, 2020. The Wall Street Journal also reports that prosecutors have collected millions of pages of documents, and that the defense has complained about the amount that is being presented, and that the WSJ's initial reporting might have unduly influenced the way the government regulators approached the company.
Previously: Blood Unicorn Fairy Tale: Theranos Founder Charged With Fraud
Elizabeth Holmes Steps Down as Theranos CEO as DoJ Levels Charges
Theranos to Dissolve in a Pool of Blood
Judge in Theranos fraud case orders 14-hour psychological test for Holmes:
Holmes and Theranos' former president Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani were charged in June 2018 with nine counts of wire fraud and two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
[...] According to the court document filed this week[*], Holmes—who is now being tried separately from Balwani—notified the court last December that she plans to submit "expert evidence relating to a mental disease or defect or any other mental condition" that has bearing on the issue of guilt. The expert providing such evidence was named in the document as psychologist Mindy Mechanic, of California State University, Fullerton.
According to Mechanic's faculty website, she focuses on "psychosocial consequences of violence, trauma, and victimization with an emphasis on violence against women and other forms of interpersonal violence." The site also notes that Mechanic "frequently provides expert testimony in complex legal cases involving interpersonal violence."
[...] In response to Holmes' plans to provide mental health evidence, federal prosecutors requested that they should also be able to examine Holmes' mental state and provide their own psychiatric evidence in court as a fair rebuttal.
[...] The judge in the case, US District Judge Edward Davila of the Northern District of California, agreed with the prosecutors. As such, he ordered Holmes to undergo up to 14 hours of psychological testing and psychiatric evaluation by two government-appointed doctors over the course of two consecutive days. Davila also ordered that the government's evaluation of Holmes be recorded on video—over Holmes' objections.
[*] Here is a link to the court document.
Elizabeth Holmes Found Guilty on 4 of 11 Charges
Elizabeth Holmes found guilty on 4 of 11 charges:
Elizabeth Holmes was convicted today of three counts of criminal wire fraud and one count of criminal conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The jury delivered its verdict after six days of deliberation.
The government's victory in the case is a rare rebuke for tech startups, which often pitch investors on their technological prowess and business acumen using wildly optimistic assumptions.
Theranos was, perhaps, an extreme example, raising over $900 million on the back of claims that its proprietary tests were better, cheaper, and less invasive than the competition. None of those claims was true, and unlike many other Silicon Valley startups, the health and safety of patients was on the line.
Holmes was found guilty of defrauding Lakeshore Capital Management (the family office of the DeVoses) of $100 million, PFM Healthcare (a hedge fund) of $38 million, and an LLC connected to Daniel Mosley (Henry Kissinger's former estate attorney) of $6 million. She was also convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud against Theranos investors more generally. On three charges, all alleging wire fraud against investors, the jury returned no verdict. Holmes was acquitted of all other charges, including those that involved defrauding patients. She faces up to 20 years in prison.
With the guilty verdict, Holmes, the founder of the company, is the first Theranos executive to be held criminally responsible for her actions, though she may not be the last.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 14 2022, @10:16PM (3 children)
Or you too, will get a life sentence for paper crime
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 16 2022, @03:58PM (1 child)
I don't understand this comment. Are you suggesting that she should get a slap-on-the-wrist instead?
I thought the typical complaint was "embezzle/wage-theft $500 million and get a $1 million fine, steal a $2 stick of gum and get sent to prison for 2 years." Shouldn't her getting a large prison sentence be what people want to have happen?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 16 2022, @06:45PM
Stealing from a rich man is not a crime, it's karma
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday January 17 2022, @07:01PM
If I steal a million ten dollar bills, it's just a paper crime, isn't it?
Did you know there is or was a man imprisoned for life in California under their three strikes law for stealing a candy bar? I think her attempt to steal millions of dollars warrants far more jail time than stealing a candy bar. She should have been given an even longer sentence than 88 years, she'll probably be paroled in ten.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 3, Troll) by Barenflimski on Friday January 14 2022, @10:56PM (23 children)
Did anyone but hedge funds lose their pants on this? Were there any regular Joes that lost everything here?
80 years for over exaggerating your product?
I must have missed something here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 14 2022, @11:23PM
Maybe the hedge funds and/or those that profit from them are trying to ensure an example is made...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 14 2022, @11:55PM (3 children)
Caught engaging in braggadocio without the required phallic equipment.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 15 2022, @06:32PM
How is this insightful? It would have been just as much a crime if it had been a man as a woman. And whatever the sentence she does get, it's probably not going to be as long as what a man would have gotten and the prison she goes to is probably going to be nicer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 16 2022, @10:47AM
Well we can't sentence a defenseless girl to prison. Maybe she could get married and bake some cookies, and leave outside work to the mean, rough boys.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 16 2022, @12:58PM
Oh please. Shouldn't you feminists be happy she's being punished for her scam just like any man would in her place? Or do you honestly believe in that crazy head of yours everyone was under the impression she had a penis when she was everyone's darling? Besides, women tend to get lighter sentences anyway, she'll be out in no time under parole.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by martyb on Saturday January 15 2022, @01:26AM (12 children)
See Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] and note that Walgreens got suckered in, among others. I don't know about hedge funds per se, but if an "average Joe" has a 401-K retirement fund, where do you think the fund invests the money? That "average Joe" was a part owner of Theranos.
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 15 2022, @08:30AM (3 children)
Your random person off the street isn't even allowed to invest in hedge funds directly or even indirectly. Additionally, their managed 401-Ks (and IRAs) cannot invest in startups and this sort of private equity without losing their protection unless they jump through all sorts of hoops, which means that they don't because the red tape isn't worth it. None of the people getting burned by this are what people would consider "average Joes."
(Score: 2) by martyb on Sunday January 16 2022, @02:06AM (2 children)
See my other commet [soylentnews.org].
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 16 2022, @08:17AM (1 child)
You know I had a thought. About how long ago did you work in financial services? Because if it were in the neighborhood of 30 to maybe 20 years ago, your experience might line up with what you thought was going on. Defined-benefit plans have no restrictions imposed by the beneficiary class (because the money being invested isn't theirs yet, it is the plan's). There were also slightly different rules for how plans could invest if it had mixed funds.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 16 2022, @10:50AM
Or maybe he's a dipshit.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Saturday January 15 2022, @10:36PM (6 children)
It has been a while since I worked in hedge funds, but when I did we did handle investments from corporate retirement funds. Most of those funds have strict limits on how much they can invest in high risk vehicles like hedge funds. 10% of their investments was the limit then. Some of those retirement funds imposed further limits on the hedge funds like they weren't allowed to hold REITs or junk bonds or that kind of thing.
The company I worked for was a fiduciary that tracked the hedge fund portfolios on behalf of the retirement funds. If the hedge funds started to go off strategy and bought instruments they weren't supposed to, I picked up the phone to the managers and warned them to cut it out or we'd pull out the billions the retirement funds had put in. Hedge funds typically leverage many times the actual dollars they get, such that if you put in a billion they might leverage that up to $50 billion. So threatening to pull out your $1 billion investment meant they had to dump $50 billion in their positions, which makes for a reasonably potent stick to beat them with.
In a low oversight environment, in which the SEC doesn't police you, many hedge funds use their leverage positions to leverage even higher, such that that 50-to-1 leverage they had before turns into a 200-to-1. That's $200 billion worth of investments riding on $1 billion in cash. If those positions go south, it's a fuck ton of margin calls to cover.
If the average guy on the street knew how precarious the financial system is because of that sort of thing, his head would explode.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Barenflimski on Saturday January 15 2022, @10:57PM (1 child)
You kinda low key blew my mind here already. Whatever that bird is that sticks its head in the sand, may have something there.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday January 16 2022, @08:08PM
It might not be a kindness to mention, but it's even worse than that. As publicly traded instruments, mutual funds have to disclose what they're doing. If you invest in one, you can demand to know everything they've invested in and they have to show you. So, if the mutual funds report they made 15% returns last quarter, you can double check that.
Hedge funds are "private investment clubs," so they don't have to tell you anything they don't want to. When you give them money, you are casting it into an informational black hole. They can tell you they're making 100% returns to entice you to fork over $10 billion, but there's no way to check if they actually are. All you can do is pull your money out. If it's been a year you're expecting to have doubled your money. But if they haven't made those kind of returns then they grab another investor's principal to give to you to make it appear as if you have doubled your money. The idea is then you run off, ecstatic, to the New York Racquet Club to brag to all of your wealthy buddies about how well your hedge fund did and tell them to invest, too.
In other words, they're ponzi schemes for the wealthy. Bernie Madoff, whom you may have heard of, did exactly what I described with his hedge fund. But he made his personal money from the management fees he charged his investors, and the criminal penalties and fines are almost never as big as the money they scrape off the top, so even if they spend a couple years in a country club jail they still come out as incredibly wealthy on the other side. So there's no financial disincentive to running a ponzi scheme nee hedge fund. The worst that happens to you is that Brad and Tiffany who lost money in your fund no longer want you in their social set in the Hamptons.
But don't worry, if their funds implode and pull down the whole system, the government will bail them out using tax dollars that you earned by slinging websites for the Man. Privatize the profits, socialize the losses.
Yes, that is the ugly truth at the heart of the global system.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 16 2022, @01:20AM
I vaguely remember this coming up about 15 years ago. Probably just some academic discussions though, nothing of practical importance.
(Score: 2) by martyb on Sunday January 16 2022, @01:27AM (2 children)
I twice worked at financial services firms, but that was many, many moons ago. You obviously have more hands-one experience than I. Thanks for the elucidation; I bow to your experience and knowledge. Thanks for the explanation... please accept my gladly-given upmod!
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday January 16 2022, @07:51PM (1 child)
Thanks! It was 20 years ago, though, so things may have changed quite a bit. :-)
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by martyb on Monday January 17 2022, @07:34PM
Let's just say it was before or just when the Pentium came out ;)
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by martyb on Sunday January 16 2022, @01:38AM
A comment below [soylentnews.org] has a much better explanation than mine. Please downmod this as "-1 Overrated".
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Saturday January 15 2022, @02:34PM (4 children)
My understanding is that quite a few Walgreens customers who had their blood genuinely tested by Theranos machines got inaccurate results, upon which important, potentially life-changing medical decisions were based.
So yeah, average Joes did get hurt. Possibly not very many, but it did happen. It's not just greedy investors - for whom I have zero sympathy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 15 2022, @04:39PM (2 children)
She was found not guilty for those charges so what you are saying is legally bullshit.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Saturday January 15 2022, @05:08PM (1 child)
Just because she herself was found not guilty doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that she was found not to he responsible for it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 16 2022, @10:55AM
Suckers who take medical tests know what they're getting into. If they choose to believe the result, that's on them. I however use horse viagra for my needs.
(Score: 2) by Barenflimski on Sunday January 16 2022, @09:58PM
Interesting. I had no idea they had been doing anything but raising money.
Sorry to hear about your friends. I hope they can reverse whatever they did based on a bad test.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by looorg on Friday January 14 2022, @11:07PM (6 children)
Taking bets on that while on bail she'll do a runner to a non-extradition country? I would if I was facing 80 years.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by vux984 on Saturday January 15 2022, @12:43AM (5 children)
That's maximum sentence possible... aka click bait. I'd be pretty surprised if she gets more than 15, and likely will be up for parole within 5.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 15 2022, @01:28AM
If she gets too much, it will be clear grounds for appeal, probably 5-8 years, but she'll walk in about 3 on good "behavior".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 15 2022, @02:11PM (1 child)
Even after 5 years she'll be past her prime. She'll already looking a bit worse for wear.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 16 2022, @11:02AM
And you'll still be hand cranking your purple-headed yogurt pistol to a picture of her for the rest of your pathetic, sad life wondering how humans actually meet eachother to have sex.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 15 2022, @03:00PM
If she recently gave birth, I'll be surprised if she gets more than one year, or any at all.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Saturday January 15 2022, @07:08PM
No parole in federal.
But you're right that "up to" is a red flag in a headline. A former US attorney at the Popehat blog who made a living knowing the sentencing guidelines thinks 20 years is plausible. With good behavior, 15% off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 15 2022, @12:18AM (1 child)
In the movie they're making about the case
https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/15/22838297/hulu-amanda-seyfried-elizabeth-holmes-theranos [theverge.com]
It's not like she has anything better to do in prison
(Score: 4, Funny) by Thexalon on Saturday January 15 2022, @03:32AM
Better that she play herself than keep on playing investors and customers.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 15 2022, @07:14AM
(Score: 2, Insightful) by pTamok on Saturday January 15 2022, @02:31PM (6 children)
From a northern European perspective (damn socialists/communists), putting her in jail for the rest of her life strikes me as unnecessarily punitive and expensive. Punitive, because there is little difference in terms of deterrence between a short sentence and a long one*, expensive because keeping people in jail is expensive, and because have someone being unproductive to society for so long is also not cheap. Loss of liberty is adequate punishment for most people, and many studies show that rehabilitation to diminish the chance of recidivism is extremely cost-effective.
Obviously, some people need to be incarcerated for the safety of society, or for their own safety: but for the others, rehabilitation should be the goal.
Against longer sentences: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180514-do-long-prison-sentences-deter-crime [bbc.com]
For longer sentences: https://www.nber.org/digest/oct98/sentence-enhancements-reduce-crime [nber.org]
It's more complicated than you might think: https://netivist.org/debate/long-prison-sentences [netivist.org]
One UK activist's view: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/nov/19/do-long-jail-sentences-stop-we-ask-the-expert [theguardian.com]
Will putting her in jail deter others from defrauding? My view is that the type of personality that defrauds either doesn't think of the consequences, or believe that they are too smart to be caught.
Is it economically effective? When you look at the cost of jail per inmate, you'd think that rehabilitation would be given a shot so that taxpayers could save the long term cost.
So yes, out her in jail. Get her to acknowledge her guilt. Put her back in society so she can work to support herself and others (through taxes).
*Career criminals say they fear being caught, not doing the time. It is not for nothing there is a phrase "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime" - for many, doing the time is no great imposition, and often gives an opportunity to network and learn how to be more effective criminals.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 15 2022, @03:17PM (1 child)
US is the world's number one jailer, incarnations rate is almost exponential
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 15 2022, @07:55PM
they hate us because of our freedoms!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 15 2022, @06:37PM
In this case, we can't necessarily assume that the sentences will run consecutively, they might well run concurrently cutting it down a lot. She's a first time offender, so she'll probably get something lower than that as well and there'll probably be time off for good behavior. It's hard to say how much time she'll actually face, but it won't be anywhere near that maximum sentence length.
It's one of the quirks of the US that you can face basically the rest of your life behind bars and then get something thats closer to a slap on the wrist. I'd be surprised if she serves much more than 5 years when all is said and done. And it will probably be done in a country club jail that's more equivalent to a normal jail in much of Europe.
(Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Saturday January 15 2022, @07:11PM
I mostly agree, though she may be just the type that is impossible to rehabilitate.
In prison, she will make a small positive contribution, landscaping the prison grounds or cleaning or some other job. Out free, we've seen that her contribution to society is a large negative number.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday January 15 2022, @10:49PM
When the East Asian Financial Crisis hit in 1997, Vietnam executed financial managers there who were convicted of white collar crimes.
I don't know if it has deterred anyone else since, but it's a lot more viscerally satisfying to the rest of us to hang the biggest thieves in the world instead of the slap on the wrist and tennis and golf holiday in low security jails they get in the West.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday January 17 2022, @07:08PM
I'd say life in prison is about as much of a deterrent as you can get. As to the expense, I'd rather my taxes pay for her incarceration than Bush's 20 year war.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 15 2022, @09:04PM (1 child)
Accredited investors are supposed to know when something is up. That is why there is such a process. She was the only person that "defrauded" them? Her underlings are all free and OK?
They're just throwing the book at her because she is a woman. Balwani is still living large. He is going to stick her with the blame, I guarantee it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 16 2022, @02:13PM
Meanwhile, in the actual legal system, women are less likely to be charged, less likely to be convicted even in the same circumstances, and receive lighter sentences when they are convicted.
"Out on bail" is not the same as "living large." She got tried first, that's all. His day in court is next. Do you know why he is being tried second? Because Elizabeth Holmes accused him of sexual abuse, which caused the judge to decide they had to be tried separately. The prosecution wanted to try them together. (I have no knowledge of whether or not the sexual abuse actually happened, but the accusation was only raised during and formed a part of her defense strategy, making it much less credible than the average similar accusation).
But yes, by all means, let's blame the prosecution for the defense tactics.