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

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 14, 2018, 6:20 PM UTC

_m8fo wrote: post #139

Karunamon wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Criminal litigation authority is on a whitelist, not a blacklist. It's not that a law restricted them, it's that they simply were never granted that authority. Random government authorities can't bring criminal proceedings anymore than the meter maid writing a parking ticket has the ability to haul you to court for parking in the wrong place. They send the information along to the people who do have that authority an…

> The key words in the article are "civil, not criminal". My keyword is why .

Post by JumpCrisscross » Wed, Mar 14, 2018, 6:22 PM UTC

_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.

Post by cma » Wed, Mar 14, 2018, 6:22 PM UTC

charlesdm wrote: post #41

edanm wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kind of agree [1], but I don't think that's why there's a difference between the cases. First of all, the Theranos people haven't yet been brought up on criminal charges, but it's still possible they could be, no? Secondly, I think there were lots of material differences between the two cases that caused them to be prosecuted differently. You can't just lump every instance of fraud as the same thing. [1] The reason…

On showing remorse: it's a bit ridiculous to think of this, since showing remorse does not mean you actually feel remorse. But it might mean you are intelligent enough to realise you need to show remorse to get off the hook.

Post by specialp » Wed, Mar 14, 2018, 6:23 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #186

specialp wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People here gave me talking points based on what you are saying years ago when I expressed skepticism about Theranos. I worked in the diagnostic industry and know that 1. Many tests (that are in the comprehensive panel that is routinely ordered) cannot be done with a finger stick, they need venous blood. 2. This isn't like a social network you can start out of a dorm room, it is a 50+ billion dollar industry that is…

I don't doubt that the comments you're referring to existed, but the HN community has been overwhelmingly skeptical about Theranos for years, to the point of cliché.

Post by mbell » Wed, Mar 14, 2018, 6:25 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #23

Ok, this is the money line in that press release for me: “The charges against Theranos, Holmes, and Balwani make clear that there is no exemption from the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws simply because a company is non-public, development-stage, or the subject of exuberant media attention.” For all those entrepreneurs are trying to "fake it until you make it" be aware that the SEC considers your…