Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Theranos, CEO Holmes, and Former President Balwani Charged with Fraud

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 557 posts

Re: Theranos, CEO Holmes, and Former President Balwani Charged with Fraud

#191

Post by daxorid »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #159
daxorid wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternative take: it's disgusting and offensive to the foundational concept of blind justice that punishment is more highly correlated with charisma and obsequiousness to judges than it is to actual crimes committed.

Why? Are you saying that remorse should not be taken into account?

Correct. Further, even if I did believe that, I wouldn't wish it in practice:

Criminality and psychopathy are tightly correlated, particularly with fraudsters. Psychopaths are excellent at faking remorse and other emotions that they do not actually feel.

I would not want the punishment of a criminal dependent on their acting skills.

Re: Theranos, CEO Holmes, and Former President Balwani Charged with Fraud

#192

Post by protomyth »

_m8fo wrote: post #100
Bud wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it does not have the authority to do so. https://www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alerts-bulletins/ib_invest...

I've already read that -- it does not explain why . It simply states that it cannot. What law restricted it? Why was that law put into place? How often are recommendations for prosecution followed up on successfully? EDIT: Thanks everyone for the information -- very interesting.

All federal prosecutors are part of the United States Department of Justice[1].

Here is the law and reasons: https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-27000-principles-federal...

Here are the statistics https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=63

1) https://www.oas.org/juridico/mla/en/usa/en_usa-int-desc-guid...

Re: Theranos, CEO Holmes, and Former President Balwani Charged with Fraud

#193

Post by Boxxed »

jonwachob91 wrote: post #28
ebbv wrote: post #19

Take a TV from a truck that's left open behind a warehouse; get months if not years in jail. Deliberately commit fraud for years and steal millions and millions of dollars; slap on the wrist. Our system is so ridiculous.

The SEC is a civil agency and can not jail anyone for anything, they can only levy penalties. Justice has to take over the case for an offender to go to prison.

How does that make the above statement any less ridiculous? Isn't that exactly what he or she is pointing out? That the system is explicitly preventing these people from serving jailtime?

Re: Theranos, CEO Holmes, and Former President Balwani Charged with Fraud

#194

Post by vasilipupkin »

pron wrote: post #181
vasilipupkin wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no. people are better off with a quick resolution because professional attorneys at the SEC decided that the legal case against Holmes is not strong enough to waste taxpayer money trying to PROVE she committed a crime. Calling their decision into question without a shred of evidence that they did something suboptimal, based on your political beliefs alone, is what I am advocating against. EDIT: Which part of this sta…

I am not saying you are wrong, only that you're making a political statement. Determining when to bet on a court case and when not to is a political decision -- do you draw the line at 85% chance of conviction? 60? 30? It can certainly be pragmatic with respect to certain metrics, but choosing those metrics, e.g. deciding that the aim should be the minimization of public expense and risk of failure is very much polit…

no, I am not. Attorneys at the SEC made this determination based on everything they had on Holmes. Calling their decision biased against poor people vs rich people, etc, political rather than legal, etc. without any evidence is bullshit.

Re: Theranos, CEO Holmes, and Former President Balwani Charged with Fraud

#195

Post by [deleted] »

_m8fo wrote: post #85
DannyBee wrote: post #62

People keep complaining about lack of jail time. As has been repeated in a number of subcomments: The SEC cannot send people to jail. Full stop. They have only civil authority. They refer criminal cases to the US attorneys/DOJ, and offer assistance. All evidence suggests they did so here. The decision to criminally prosecute or not is out of their hands.

Why can't the SEC send people to jail? I don't understand the point you're making. If people believe something is an injustice should they just shut up? Even if they can't send people to jail people should complain if they feel that shouldn't be the case -- it's a signal that perhaps the current process is wrong. After all, all restrictions and rules were created by us to begin with. Complaining can be useful feedbac…

[deleted]

Re: Theranos, CEO Holmes, and Former President Balwani Charged with Fraud

#196

Post by DannyBee »

_m8fo wrote: post #100
Bud wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it does not have the authority to do so. https://www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alerts-bulletins/ib_invest...

I've already read that -- it does not explain why . It simply states that it cannot. What law restricted it? Why was that law put into place? How often are recommendations for prosecution followed up on successfully? EDIT: Thanks everyone for the information -- very interesting.

Federal agencies are explicitly affirmative authority grants. Their powers are laid out in those acts. They can only do those things.

They cannot do other things just because "no law restricts it".

The exact authority grant is complicated.

You want:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78d and following sections, plus a whole bunch of stuff enacted elsewhere.

The part you are probably most looking for is: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78u

There you can see most clearly their civil authority and what they are allowed to do. You can see it says "Whenever it shall appear to the Commission that any person is engaged ... in acts or practices constituting a violation of {a bunch of stuff} .. it may in its discretion bring an action ... to enjoin such acts or practices ... . The Commission may transmit such evidence as may be available concerning such acts or practices as may constitute a violation of any provision of this chapter or the rules or regulations thereunder to the Attorney General, who may, in his discretion, institute the necessary criminal proceedings under this chapter"

It then goes on to add additional monetary penalty authority that you see exercised here.

Re: Theranos, CEO Holmes, and Former President Balwani Charged with Fraud

#199

Post by pron »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #194
pron wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not saying you are wrong, only that you're making a political statement. Determining when to bet on a court case and when not to is a political decision -- do you draw the line at 85% chance of conviction? 60? 30? It can certainly be pragmatic with respect to certain metrics, but choosing those metrics, e.g. deciding that the aim should be the minimization of public expense and risk of failure is very much polit…

no, I am not. Attorneys at the SEC made this determination based on everything they had on Holmes. Calling their decision biased against poor people vs rich people, etc, political rather than legal, etc. without any evidence is bullshit.

> based on everything they had on Holmes

... and a decision on when it is worth it to pursue a case. Unless the chance at conviction is zero, there is some politically determined risk threshold involved. Not only is the decision on the threshold political, but the risk itself is determined by the resources at the defendant's disposal. I am not saying that their decision is necessarily biased against poor people, but I am pointing out that there is a political stance involved no matter which way you come down on this issue.

Re: Theranos, CEO Holmes, and Former President Balwani Charged with Fraud

#200

Post by vl »

Waterluvian wrote: post #25

Is Holmes still rich after this? I can't tell just how much of her wealth she's being forced to return in form of shares.

>Is Holmes still rich after this?

But why it matters at all? Penalty should be proportional to the deed, not to the person's finances.

Post reply on HN