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

321–330 of 1001 posts

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#321

Post by mkl »

paxys wrote: post #222
latenightcoding wrote: post #101

Question: could Holmes have avoided all of this by pivoting to something else and not losing investors money. It is extremely common for startups to exaggerate their tech just to later pivot to something else without any repercussions.

A pivot wasn't necessary. She could have avoided it by recognizing when the writing was on the wall for the company and working towards a graceful shutdown rather than doubling and tripling down on their failures.

That still would have cost investors most of their investment, and probably would have led to this same conspiracy and fraud outcome, since she lied to them to get their funding well before the company shut down. Maybe she could have afforded a bigger/better legal team that way though?

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#322

Post by taeric »

seibelj wrote: post #286
niyazpk wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sending fraudulent people to jail for a long, long time is fundamental to running a healthy society Really?! Interesting... I agree, a functioning society needs good law and order, and some way to prosecute and bring criminals to justice. But I am personally not convinced that sending someone "to jail for a long, long time" is the solution. How is that productive? I think we need to come up with better ways to serv…

The length can be debated, but jail wastes the most priceless resource you have - time. That’s why it’s a punishment.

I think the question is whether punitive policies work in that way. I'm fairly comfortable saying this person getting locked up for a long time will probably not deter too many others from doing similar, at a personal level. I suppose it can be argued that it doesn't have to act as a deterrent to individuals at a high rate, but to groups? But... why aren't we then hearing about everyone else that enabled this? (That is, this just encourages more folks to make sure to have a scape goat.)

Or, do we really think it was down to just this one person's actions?

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#323

Post by nradov »

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…

Those patients might have standing to file a civil class action suit against Holmes. Not sure if she has enough assets left to make that worthwhile.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#324

Post by rossdavidh »

gpm wrote: post #92
VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #14

So she was found guilty on 4 charges. Not guilty on 4 charges. And no verdict on the remaining 3 charges. So does she have to get another trial on the remaining 3?

Not an expert, but I believe no verdict usually means "not guilty but the prosecutor can try again if they want to". Considering she was found guilty on 4, it's not obvious that they will bother.

I wonder if they get to hear what the sentence is before they decide on the remaining 3?

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#325

Post by refurb »

user_7832 wrote: post #260
beebmam wrote: post #227

Sending fraudulent people to jail for a long, long time is fundamental to running a healthy society. One of the reasons the US is a decent place to live compared to other countries is because we actually prosecute frauds and criminals here. Let's start seeing some other countries around the world start doing this, like India, Russia, and China. My 80 year old mother was recently tricked into wiring money by Indian sc…

> One of the reasons the US is a decent place to live compared to other countries is because we actually prosecute frauds and criminals here. Let's start seeing some other countries around the world start doing this, like India, Russia, and China. I'm really not sure fraud is the biggest issue plaguing these countries... corruption is definitely an issue (though the US has in some cases legalized it into lobbying and…

Nobody said the US system was perfect, just better (along with other developed countries that have rule of law).

I lived in a developing country for a while and the corruption can be maddening. You might agree to partner with someone to buy property, they take your money and cut you out. In corrupt countries, you might be entirely screwed - that person has too many connections and influence, nobody will touch them.

At least in countries with rule of law you could sue them. You might not win or be made whole, but at least there is a system that is somewhat dependable.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#328

Post by jcranmer »

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…

It's not particularly surprising, if you assume that the jury was essentially looking for a specific, traceable line between representations from Elizabeth Holmes herself (and nobody else) and the subsequent payment as a necessary element of fraud. (Whether or not the jury was doing so could be guessed from reading the jury instructions, which I haven't done).

Being found guilty of defrauding investors in that light is easy because Holmes did specific acts, such as basically saying "we're endorsed by $BIG_PHARMA" knowing that they weren't, as part of her investor pitch--that's a pretty unambiguous traceable injury. But tracing anything she herself said to getting a random schmoe on the street to take a blood test... again, if you think fraud requires that specific act, it's not hard to see why someone would vote not guilty there.

Of course, I would still have liked to see her proclaimed guilty on fraud for the test results. But as abhorrent as her actions may have been, they may not have necessarily climbed the bar into illegality.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#329

Post by greenyoda »

fnord77 wrote: post #301
bluishgreen wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, In order to invoke federal jurisdiction the SEC uses the fact that they communicated beyond state lines over the wire. This is why all the charges are called wire fraud. Relevant: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause

so if she only dealt with california investors, this trial wouldn't be happening?

Then she could be prosecuted by the State of California, for violation of state fraud laws.
Post reply on HN