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

Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

671–680 of 1001 posts

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#671

Post by xwdv »

tptacek wrote: post #78

Time to kibitz on the likely sentence! You can get the federal sentencing guidelines here: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manu... They're long and mostly not relevant except for the sections pertaining to Holmes conduct. Here's the indictment: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/page/file/1135066/download Holmes was found guilty of one 18 USC 1349 charge, and 3 18 USC 1343 charges; the 1343's s…

I hope this “girlboss” rots in prison for the rest of her useful life. Needs to set a good example.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#672

Post by rendall »

runeks wrote: post #544
droidno9 wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't discount the possibility that she'll have her sentence commuted by a future President. Look at the roster of political heavyweights that she was able to attract to the company. It wouldn't surprise me if one or more of these people still have an affinity for her and, at the right time, throw some good words in the President's ears on her behalf.

This disgusts me. The president should not have the power to free anyone from prison. If the laws are broken then (attempt to) change those, but otherwise you’re just saying “yeah, you’re guilty, but I like you so you don’t need to serve your time like everyone else”.

IIRC the President only has the power to pardon Federal crimes, not "anyone".

As for Ms. Holmes, she defrauded very rich and powerful people. I would be surprised if she were shown any leniency at all, never mind a Presidential pardon.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#673

Post by wayoutthere »

seehafer wrote: post #187
tptacek wrote: post #78

Time to kibitz on the likely sentence! You can get the federal sentencing guidelines here: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manu... They're long and mostly not relevant except for the sections pertaining to Holmes conduct. Here's the indictment: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/page/file/1135066/download Holmes was found guilty of one 18 USC 1349 charge, and 3 18 USC 1343 charges; the 1343's s…

From former AUSA, and current white-collar defense attorney Ken White: "She faces a max of 65 years (3x20 + 1x5). And it's not at all clear she'll do less than 20." Apparently the sentences will not necessarily be served concurrently. https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1478170494130003976?s=20

And to note, these are federal charges so there’s no parole. When you get 20 years in federal time, you may get some time off for good behavior but you’re going to serve most of your sentence.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#674

Post by Someone »

necovek wrote: post #603
starfallg wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, negligence would be that something else. Theranos had a duty of care to the patients and they very blatantly breached that duty. Fraud deals with purely financial loss, while negligence deals with harm which is much wider in scope.

I am neither American nor a native English speaker, but I always thought fraud was mostly a deliberate action, and negligence was mostly resulting out of either lack of action or accidental consequences of an action. So if a company deliberately and knowingly markets a "sepsis-test" that puts out completely random results and leads to people getting their limbs amputated (bear with me, I know the example is terrible)…

I’m not a lawyer, but the Wikipedia part I quoted gives me the impression that, in US law or maybe the specific state this case was in, “fraud” is legally defined “depriving somebody of any money or property”.

Again assuming Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence#Procedure_in_the_Un...) has this right, negligence requires injury (“The United States generally recognizes four elements to a negligence action: duty, breach, proximate causation and injury. A plaintiff who makes a negligence claim must prove all four elements of negligence in order to win his or her case”

“Injury” may have a wider meaning in US law than elsewhere, though. Wikipedia gives me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_injury, which says “Personal injury is a legal term for an injury to the body, mind or emotions, as opposed to an injury to property”, so properties can be injured, too, and https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1646 sort-of shows that’s a synonym for “property damage”.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#676

Post by morelisp »

bambax wrote: post #662
seehafer wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From former AUSA, and current white-collar defense attorney Ken White: "She faces a max of 65 years (3x20 + 1x5). And it's not at all clear she'll do less than 20." Apparently the sentences will not necessarily be served concurrently. https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1478170494130003976?s=20

I hate Holmes as much as anyone [0], but life in prison (65 years when you're 37 = out when you're 102) sounds unreasonably harsh. She's not convicted of actually, physically harming anyone, esp. patients (which doesn't mean she didn't -- but she wasn't found guilty of that); she's convicted of lying to investors. That's obviously bad, and should carry some form of punishment. Maybe 5 years? But life?? That's insane.…

As long as we send people to prison for 65 years, it should be people who did the kind of things she did.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#677

Post by flexie »

Boritanian wrote: post #670
bambax wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate Holmes as much as anyone [0], but life in prison (65 years when you're 37 = out when you're 102) sounds unreasonably harsh. She's not convicted of actually, physically harming anyone, esp. patients (which doesn't mean she didn't -- but she wasn't found guilty of that); she's convicted of lying to investors. That's obviously bad, and should carry some form of punishment. Maybe 5 years? But life?? That's insane.…

She effectively stole millions. That's multiple lifetimes worth of work for a lot of people. If you assume average salary of 100k per year per person with 1/4th of time work per year. that's effectively 400k per year per person. He stole a hundred million which would be 250 years.

If it matters how rich the investors she defrauded actually are, perhaps she should get just a few months in jail:

"Notably, Theranos’ investors weren’t the usual-suspect venture capital firms. Rather, her funding came from individuals like former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and the Walton family, among other wealthy elites. Some evidence showed that these investors were willing to give Theranos money even when Holmes evaded their more probing questions."

https://techcrunch.com/2022/01/03/elizabeth-holmes-verdict-g...

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#679

Post by rsynnott »

droidno9 wrote: post #521
tptacek wrote: post #78

Time to kibitz on the likely sentence! You can get the federal sentencing guidelines here: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manu... They're long and mostly not relevant except for the sections pertaining to Holmes conduct. Here's the indictment: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/page/file/1135066/download Holmes was found guilty of one 18 USC 1349 charge, and 3 18 USC 1343 charges; the 1343's s…

Don't discount the possibility that she'll have her sentence commuted by a future President. Look at the roster of political heavyweights that she was able to attract to the company. It wouldn't surprise me if one or more of these people still have an affinity for her and, at the right time, throw some good words in the President's ears on her behalf.

She'd want to get on with it; they're mostly fairly elderly.

And the optics would be _awful_; no sensible president would do it in the first place.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#680

Post by xdennis »

dathinab wrote: post #134
jonwachob91 wrote: post #40

It blows my mind that she was found guilty for defrauding investors, but not guilty for defrauding patients about their test results. Investors know that every dollar they put into a company could disappear, it's why startups get capital from investors and not bank loans. But a patient does not expect for their blood test results to be completely wrong. Her tests weren't giving false-negatives or false-positives, the…

> defrauding patients about their test results Because und test results where in general correctish, they where just not gotten in exactly the way it was claimed, which was also not noticable less reliable or anything. And what the user bought was the test result. As far as I understood, with my very limited understanding of US law it seems hard to sue as a consumer as you where deceived but not hurt/damaged in any w…

> test results where in general correctish

They diluted the blood. They couldn't possibly be correct.

Post reply on HN