Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes Criminal Fraud Charge Update

Planigale said:
I also don't think that deterrence is a real justification. Do you really think that this would deter anyone? It did not deter her.
Click to expand...

Crooks generally don't expect to get caught. Every time one is convicted and sent to prison, it serves as a warning to all the others.
 
Bob001 said:
So you don't think she committed a crime? Or a young blonde should be able to dance away? Or what? She wasn't charged with anything close to all her crimes. She engaged in a massive billion-dollar fraud over at least 15 years. She threatened and intimidated employees who tried to tell the truth. She obstructed investigations by authorities. Maybe worst, ordinary consumers made medical decisions based on false results provided by Theranos outlets. If a teenager selling crack on a street corner can go away for 20 years, she deserves at least the same.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...mes-lawsuits-patients-harm-arizona/742008002/
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/09/the...sed-immediate-jeopardy-to-patients-audit.html

By your logic, Bernie Madoff should be enjoying retirement at the beach. After all, a lot of his victims were rich, too, and he's not likely to re-offend. And he never interfered with anybody's medical care.
Click to expand...

I also think it would be wrong to send a teenager selling crack on a street corner away for twenty years if it was a first conviction.

I am not saying she did not commit a crime. I am saying that the main object of jail should be public safety.

Yes, I am being provocative, but the US does over use incarceration, including pre trial detention. Non-violent white collar criminals who steal from rich people are punished more severely than violent criminals who rob poor people.

Their clearly was an issue with the fact that a FDA non-approved test system was marketed by Walgreens. This does represent a systemic failure affecting the US healthcare ecosystem. As a medic I have been presented with tests patients have had from US labs which are smaller but probably little different from Theranos. My response is I will not make clinical decisions based on unaudited non externally approved and external QC monitored labs. Let alone making diagnoses such as chronic Lyme disease without ever examining the patient.
 
Planigale said:
That definitely works - crime will now cease!
Click to expand...
Deterrence is always a thorny issue, and of course the continuing existence of crime shows that it has little if any effect on those who believe they will not be caught in the first place. It will always be speculative, though, because if deterrence is successful, those on whom it works will not be counted.

And, of course, we must then decide what level of deterrence is appropriate. We don't hang people for stealing bread or chop off their hands any more, though we do still deal excessively with some crimes - a matter probably best left for another topic.

But I do think that, even if much of the fault can be laid on the system and the gullibility of others, we have someone who exploited them in a manner that was indeed criminal, and in the process did, or at least risked, great harm to the patients at the receiving end of the process. It is possible, after all, to be a whistle blower rather than an opportunist.

No doubt just about any sentence would insure that she won't reoffend in the same way, but I'm not convinced that she's the sort of person who, if she got off lightly, would not find some other way to market her unfortunate ability and willingness to profit from the weakness of others.
 
I remain convinced that the primary purpose of sentencing is to satisfy the community's sense of justice. Deterrence? Chance would be a fine thing. Rehabilitation? A noble and humane concept, that should be implemented separately from punishment.
 
Planigale said:
I also think it would be wrong to send a teenager selling crack on a street corner away for twenty years if it was a first conviction.

I am not saying she did not commit a crime. I am saying that the main object of jail should be public safety.

Yes, I am being provocative, but the US does over use incarceration, including pre trial detention. Non-violent white collar criminals who steal from rich people are punished more severely than violent criminals who rob poor people.

Their clearly was an issue with the fact that a FDA non-approved test system was marketed by Walgreens. This does represent a systemic failure affecting the US healthcare ecosystem. As a medic I have been presented with tests patients have had from US labs which are smaller but probably little different from Theranos. My response is I will not make clinical decisions based on unaudited non externally approved and external QC monitored labs. Let alone making diagnoses such as chronic Lyme disease without ever examining the patient.
Click to expand...


Punishment and deterrence are legitimate and important functions of the criminal justice system. They represent the community's judgment that certain conduct cannot be tolerated. By your standard, shoplifters -- much more likely to re-offend -- should be punished more harshly than murderers -- usually a one-time event. Few would agree.

And Theranos did way more than sell a "non-FDA approved" test. Their tests never worked. They never could work. They were fraudulent from the beginning. Theranos lied about them and falsified data that supported them. Consumers who relied on the results were injured. Our health care system has a lot of problems, but it's not responsible for policing fraud. That's what cops are for.

It's incomprehensible that anyone could minimize the breadth and depth of Theranos' willful and deliberate crimes. If Holmes doesn't deserve a long prison sentence, who does?
 
Bob001 said:
Punishment and deterrence are legitimate and important functions of the criminal justice system. They represent the community's judgment that certain conduct cannot be tolerated. By your standard, shoplifters -- much more likely to re-offend -- should be punished more harshly than murderers -- usually a one-time event. Few would agree.

And Theranos did way more than sell a "non-FDA approved" test. Their tests never worked. They never could work. They were fraudulent from the beginning. Theranos lied about them and falsified data that supported them. Consumers who relied on the results were injured. Our health care system has a lot of problems, but it's not responsible for policing fraud. That's what cops are for.

It's incomprehensible that anyone could minimize the breadth and depth of Theranos' willful and deliberate crimes. If Holmes doesn't deserve a long prison sentence, who does?
Click to expand...

No I very explicitly mentioned non-violent crimes. I appreciate there is a continuity; harm may be done with non-violent crimes. I would say that stealing $100 in a theft from a car or by fraud should be less severely punished than a mugging. What I am saying is the crime is theft, to some extent whether you steal $10,000,000 dollars or $10 the crime is similar and the penalty should be similar. Because you steal from rich people the penalty should not be more than if you steal from poor people.

That her test wouldn't work was obvious, I remember looking at the claims years ago, and looking into it and thinking there is no way this can work. I find it hard to understand how people could have fallen for this. However that is the nature of
a good con.

Clearly she should have to try and recompense people for their losses. My punishment for her would be she can never be rich again.
 
Planigale said:
I also think it would be wrong to send a teenager selling crack on a street corner away for twenty years if it was a first conviction.

I am not saying she did not commit a crime. I am saying that the main object of jail should be public safety.

Yes, I am being provocative, but the US does over use incarceration, including pre trial detention. Non-violent white collar criminals who steal from rich people are punished more severely than violent criminals who rob poor people.

Their clearly was an issue with the fact that a FDA non-approved test system was marketed by Walgreens. This does represent a systemic failure affecting the US healthcare ecosystem. As a medic I have been presented with tests patients have had from US labs which are smaller but probably little different from Theranos. My response is I will not make clinical decisions based on unaudited non externally approved and external QC monitored labs. Let alone making diagnoses such as chronic Lyme disease without ever examining the patient.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that the public is probably much safer with her locked up.

Their savings are safer (remember they may have lost retirement savings because their funds invested in this clap trap).

They're physically safer, because they're getting access to real medicine and not ********.
 
Planigale said:
No I very explicitly mentioned non-violent crimes. I appreciate there is a continuity; harm may be done with non-violent crimes. I would say that stealing $100 in a theft from a car or by fraud should be less severely punished than a mugging. What I am saying is the crime is theft, to some extent whether you steal $10,000,000 dollars or $10 the crime is similar and the penalty should be similar. Because you steal from rich people the penalty should not be more than if you steal from poor people.

That her test wouldn't work was obvious, I remember looking at the claims years ago, and looking into it and thinking there is no way this can work. I find it hard to understand how people could have fallen for this. However that is the nature of a good con.

Clearly she should have to try and recompense people for their losses. My punishment for her would be she can never be rich again.
Click to expand...


I don't think you fully understand what Holmes did. She didn't just steal somebody's wallet or cash their pension check (both of which would get jail time). She engaged in a complex 15-year-long scheme to defraud thousands of people. She likely committed hundreds of discrete crimes to that end. She lied to investors, regulators and patients. She told investors that the Pentagon was secretly using her gadgets in combat zones. She obstructed investigations. She threatened or fired employees who questioned her claims. She threatened the Wall Street Journal reporter who finally exposed her and tried to get Rupert Murdoch to fire him. I think you could argue that every patient who gave blood for a fraudulent test was a victim of actual assault. Non-violent crimes can still be devastating. She has never accepted a shred of responsibility. After her arrest she started claiming she was abused by her boyfriend: "I'm just a helpless little girl. He made me do it."

Here's one paragraph from what the U.S. attorney actually accused her of:
Further, the indictment alleges that based on the defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions, many hundreds of patients paid, or caused their medical insurance companies to pay, Theranos, or Walgreens acting on behalf of Theranos, for blood tests and test results, sometimes following referrals from their defrauded doctors.* In addition, the defendants delivered to doctors and patients blood results that were inaccurate, unreliable, and improperly validated.* The defendants also delivered to doctors and patients blood test results from which critical results were improperly removed.
Click to expand...
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/p...ng-officer-charged-alleged-wire-fraud-schemes

Many hundreds!

Note that the page also links to descriptions of federal prosecutions of other tech fraudsters whose crimes were relatively smaller.

Also, an interview with John Carreyrou, the WSJ reporter who lifted the curtain.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/28/22697263/john-carreyrou-theranos-elizabeth-holmes-decoder

How can you trivialize her massive crimes? Bernie Madoff didn't kill anybody either. What do you think should have happened to him?
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
I don't think you fully understand what Holmes did. She didn't just steal somebody's wallet or cash their pension check (both of which would get jail time). She engaged in a complex 15-year-long scheme to defraud thousands of people. She likely committed hundreds of discrete crimes to that end. She lied to investors, regulators and patients. She told investors that the Pentagon was secretly using her gadgets in combat zones. She obstructed investigations. She threatened or fired employees who questioned her claims. She threatened the Wall Street Journal reporter who finally exposed her and tried to get Rupert Murdoch to fire him. I think you could argue that every patient who gave blood for a fraudulent test was a victim of actual assault. Non-violent crimes can still be devastating. She has never accepted a shred of responsibility. After her arrest she started claiming she was abused by her boyfriend: "I'm just a helpless little girl. He made me do it."

Here's one paragraph from what the U.S. attorney actually accused her of:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/p...ng-officer-charged-alleged-wire-fraud-schemes

Many hundreds!

Note that the page also links to descriptions of federal prosecutions of other tech fraudsters whose crimes were relatively smaller.

Also, an interview with John Carreyrou, the WSJ reporter who lifted the curtain.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/28/22697263/john-carreyrou-theranos-elizabeth-holmes-decoder

How can you trivialize her massive crimes? Bernie Madoff didn't kill anybody either. What do you think should have happened to him?
Click to expand...

I am not tying to trivialise her crimes. I am questioning whether prison is actually at the best option, and if so whether prolonged imprisonment is right. There is evidence that the punishment aspect is mainly achieved with the initial period of imprisonment (particularly for first offences), people then acclimatise to prison and added years add little. (Violent offenders are different, then removing them from circulation clearly has a public protection role.)

In the UK (I do not know about the US) courts can impose extensive restrictions and conditions on people, combined with a suspended sentence (in part or whole) which means a breach can result in immediate imprisonment.

I would accept that since in general US jail terms are excessive (extending to hundreds of years), and include life terms for minor non-violent crimes under three strikes legislation, her period of imprisonment is not excessive in US terms.
 
Bob001 said:
I don't think you fully understand what Holmes did. She didn't just steal somebody's wallet or cash their pension check (both of which would get jail time). She engaged in a complex 15-year-long scheme to defraud thousands of people. She likely committed hundreds of discrete crimes to that end. She lied to investors, regulators and patients. She told investors that the Pentagon was secretly using her gadgets in combat zones. She obstructed investigations. She threatened or fired employees who questioned her claims. She threatened the Wall Street Journal reporter who finally exposed her and tried to get Rupert Murdoch to fire him. I think you could argue that every patient who gave blood for a fraudulent test was a victim of actual assault. Non-violent crimes can still be devastating. She has never accepted a shred of responsibility. After her arrest she started claiming she was abused by her boyfriend: "I'm just a helpless little girl. He made me do it."

Here's one paragraph from what the U.S. attorney actually accused her of:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/p...ng-officer-charged-alleged-wire-fraud-schemes

Many hundreds!

Note that the page also links to descriptions of federal prosecutions of other tech fraudsters whose crimes were relatively smaller.

Also, an interview with John Carreyrou, the WSJ reporter who lifted the curtain.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/28/22697263/john-carreyrou-theranos-elizabeth-holmes-decoder

How can you trivialize her massive crimes? Bernie Madoff didn't kill anybody either. What do you think should have happened to him?
Click to expand...

For me this has been rather arse over tit in terms of criminality. She should have been prosecuted as you say for something like assault for every single person she subjected to her fraudulent tests. The financial crimes should have been the least important crimes.
 
Darat said:
For me this has been rather arse over tit in terms of criminality. She should have been prosecuted as you say for something like assault for every single person she subjected to her fraudulent tests. The financial crimes should have been the least important crimes.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that they prosecuted her for the charges that were easiest to prove, and even then the jury only convicted her on four of 11 counts. She was actually acquitted of four counts of wire fraud against patients. There were so many steps between Holmes and any individual patient that it would have been hard to prove she was responsible for any injury to any particular person.

But in fact she sure did a lot of harm to a lot of people.
 
Planigale said:
I am not tying to trivialise her crimes. I am questioning whether prison is actually at the best option, and if so whether prolonged imprisonment is right.
.....
I would accept that since in general US jail terms are excessive (extending to hundreds of years), and include life terms for minor non-violent crimes under three strikes legislation, her period of imprisonment is not excessive in US terms.
Click to expand...

You haven't said what you think should have happened to Bernie Madoff, who also engaged in a massive long-running fraud, but didn't actually assault anybody.
 
If it matters to anyone, it looks like Holmes might be spending her sentence in a minimum security prison in Texas (no prison walls, women inmates only, guards do not also work with men's prisons.)

From: Yahoo
The judge has recommended a place called FPC Bryan, also known as a federal prison camp. It's a minimum security facility. It's located in Texas, and it's exclusively for women.
 
Segnosaur said:
If it matters to anyone, it looks like Holmes might be spending her sentence in a minimum security prison in Texas (no prison walls, women inmates only, guards do not also work with men's prisons.)

From: Yahoo
The judge has recommended a place called FPC Bryan, also known as a federal prison camp. It's a minimum security facility. It's located in Texas, and it's exclusively for women.
Click to expand...


Here's what stood out from your link:
.... she can then make an appeal to the Ninth Circuit's Court of Appeals and ask for their permission to remain free. It will then be up to them. Still, though, an appeal could take years. Those cases take a long time to work their way through the court.
Click to expand...

She might be well into middle age before she checks in to the Graybar Motel. But I'm surprised that the judge recommended a specific Club Fed. They usually leave that up to the Bureau of Prisons. I wonder if that was a defense request, and if so why. She doesn't have any obvious connections to Texas.
 
Planigale said:
One thing I would propose is the sentence is too severe. She is being punished because rich people lost money. She is a first time convict, who has committed a non-violent crime. I would argue she should have no time behind bars. I suspect no one has really suffered because of her crimes. Stealing the last $100 from an old man or woman is morally worse than what she did. The people who invested in her business did so knowing there was a risk. They knew they might lose their money, and they did. Community service and a suspended sentence so if she slips up she goes to jail seems appropriate. No one gains by locking her up. It is expensive, it protects no one, and it deprives the community of potentially a contributing memeber of society.
Click to expand...

The wealth of the person being stolen from should have no bearing on the sentence.Stealing is stealing.
 
dudalb said:
The wealth of the person being stolen from should have no bearing on the sentence.Stealing is stealing.
Click to expand...

Thankfully in our societies our legal systems have a variable scale of punishment for stealing. Someone stealing a packet of crisps should not receive the same punishment as someone who has stolen ten thousand cigarettes.
 
dudalb said:
The wealth of the person being stolen from should have no bearing on the sentence.Stealing is stealing.
Click to expand...
The wealthy person is likely to have purchased legal and accounting services that enlarge that wealth. That extra component is never shared directly with the underclass though many would argue it should be. That is how Robin Hood acted as a virtue driven intermediary.
The thief typically has no access to those services.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Thankfully in our societies our legal systems have a variable scale of punishment for stealing. Someone stealing a packet of crisps should not receive the same punishment as someone who has stolen ten thousand cigarettes.
Click to expand...
I agree. Crisps are not the healthiest food, but at least they don't cause cancer. The people we should be punishing are the ones who manufactured and sold those cigarettes. Stealing a pack of crisps deprives the seller of legitimate income. Stealing ten thousand cigarettes is potentially saving many lives.

But that's our rotten system. If only Elizabeth Holmes had put the usual disclaimers on her device she would have been untouchable. That was her mistake for sure, and she is paying for it. But we must make an example of her so people don't start looking more closely at the rest of the industry.
 
Bob001 said:
Here's what stood out from your link:


She might be well into middle age before she checks in to the Graybar Motel. But I'm surprised that the judge recommended a specific Club Fed. They usually leave that up to the Bureau of Prisons. I wonder if that was a defense request, and if so why. She doesn't have any obvious connections to Texas.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry too much about that.

https://arstechnica.com/science/202...ction-11-year-sentence-despite-bleak-outlook/

"This sentence is bulletproof on appeal," Seth Kretzer, a criminal defense lawyer not involved in the case, told Bloomberg News. "The end of this long case is drawing near."
“Heaven”

Experts who spoke with Law360 also expressed doubt that Davila would allow Holmes to remain free on bail until her appeal is complete, which could take years. Currently, Holmes is scheduled to surrender to the US Bureau of Prisons by April 27, 2023.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the prison in question is described as "heaven" although that is relative to the alternatives.
If her conviction withstands appeal, experts told Law360 that they expect Holmes, who is 38, will end up serving no less than nine and a half years behind bars—85 percent of her sentence—assuming she is a candidate for early release for good behavior.
Click to expand...
 
Planigale said:
I am not tying to trivialise her crimes. I am questioning whether prison is actually at the best option, and if so whether prolonged imprisonment is right. There is evidence that the punishment aspect is mainly achieved with the initial period of imprisonment (particularly for first offences), people then acclimatise to prison and added years add little. (Violent offenders are different, then removing them from circulation clearly has a public protection role.)
Click to expand...

I have sympathy for Holmes regarding the rape she suffered and her inability to connect with people. But massive fraud involving vital medical information and brutal financial and legal attacks on anyone with enough courage and integrity to try and do something about it? Driving an innocent man to suicide? Framing people who tried to expose her crimes as criminals and spies, attempting to destroy their reputations and their lives to cover up her crimes?

Both Holmes and Balwani received appropriate sentences. I regret Boies isn't going to prison with them, because that's where he belongs.
 
Last edited:
Planigale said:
I am not tying to trivialise her crimes. I am questioning whether prison is actually at the best option, and if so whether prolonged imprisonment is right. There is evidence that the punishment aspect is mainly achieved with the initial period of imprisonment (particularly for first offences), people then acclimatise to prison and added years add little. (Violent offenders are different, then removing them from circulation clearly has a public protection role.)

In the UK (I do not know about the US) courts can impose extensive restrictions and conditions on people, combined with a suspended sentence (in part or whole) which means a breach can result in immediate imprisonment.

I would accept that since in general US jail terms are excessive (extending to hundreds of years), and include life terms for minor non-violent crimes under three strikes legislation, her period of imprisonment is not excessive in US terms.
Click to expand...
Maybe the point is that society in general thinks she's an anti-social scumbag, and they don't want her scumbag ass hanging out in their society like what she did is no big deal. Maybe that's all there is to it: People just want her to piss off to prison for a few years.

That seems like an entirely reasonable sentiment to me. Why does prison have to be about rehabilitation or deterrence or some "higher" purpose? Why can't it simply be about "you're a scumbag and you need to piss off out of our society for a while"?
 
Last edited:
Irony is fleeing to Mexico, unless she intended to move on very quickly, would ot have done her much good since the US does have a extradition treaty with Mexico. Mexico has occasionally denied extradition request involving Mexican nationals, but somehow I don't think they would honor q request for Holmes.
 
trustbutverify said:
I have sympathy for Holmes regarding the rape she suffered and her inability to connect with people. But massive fraud involving vital medical information and brutal financial and legal attacks on anyone with enough courage and integrity to try and do something about it? Driving an innocent man to suicide? Framing people who tried to expose her crimes as criminals and spies, attempting to destroy their reputations and their lives to cover up her crimes?

Both Holmes and Balwani received appropriate sentences. I regret Boies isn't going to prison with them, because that's where he belongs.
Click to expand...

And given her record of lying, I would require some pretty solid proof before I took her rape accusaton seriouly.
 
Now she is saying the ticket to Mexico City was for a friend's wedding...
Sorry, Liz, but fleeing to another country while awaiting sentence is fleeing to another country , period, and you are breaking the law if you do so no matter what the reason.
Not that you are particulary trustworthy on your reason anyway.....
 
dudalb said:
Now she is saying the ticket to Mexico City was for a friend's wedding...
Sorry, Liz, but fleeing to another country while awaiting sentence is fleeing to another country , period, and you are breaking the law if you do so no matter what the reason.
Not that you are particulary trustworthy on your reason anyway.....
Click to expand...

Besides which, if you are trying something so stupid, buy a return ticket. Possible deniability and all that.
 
dudalb said:
Irony is fleeing to Mexico, unless she intended to move on very quickly, would ot have done her much good since the US does have a extradition treaty with Mexico. Mexico has occasionally denied extradition request involving Mexican nationals, but somehow I don't think they would honor q request for Holmes.
Click to expand...

Quite a number of countries don't have extradition treaties with the U.S. Many are awful third-world places, but I'll bet a rich American could live quite comfortably in Qatar, Bahrain, or even Indonesia or Morocco. She could easily have gone from Mexico to anywhere else. I'm really surprised she didn't charter a private jet, rather than (apparently) booking with an airline. But once she did there'd be no turning back.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-without-extradition
 
dudalb said:
Irony is fleeing to Mexico, unless she intended to move on very quickly, would ot have done her much good since the US does have a extradition treaty with Mexico. Mexico has occasionally denied extradition request involving Mexican nationals, but somehow I don't think they would honor q request for Holmes.
Click to expand...
It actually depends. Extradition treaties can be very specific. I don't know the details of the treaty with Mexico, but some countries won't extradite for financial crimes.
 
The Guardian report - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/21/elizabeth-holmes-mexico-plane-ticket-prosecutors - mentions that William Evans departed on the same flight that Holmes was booked on, using a one way ticket and only returned to the US about 6 weeks later from another continent.

Of course, this is just another of those awful coincidences which have bedevilled Holmes' life...Nothing to do with her at all...Just like all the other things which are nothing to do with her...Some folk are just so unfortunate, aren't they?
 
Apparently she has ran out of appeals, and the Judge has ordered her to report to that Club Fed in Texas on May 30th.
No Pleading her Belly this time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom