Former Reddit CEO Asks: Why Is Theranos' Holmes the Only Tech CEO Facing Prosecution? (npr.org) 177
Federal prosecutors allege that Elizabeth Holmes and the No. 2 at Theranos, Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani, "broke the law by deceiving investors about how well the business was doing and the capabilities of its testing machines, in addition to allegedly providing false or flawed test results to patients," reports NPR.
But they add that in Silicon Valley, the trial has launched this debate. "Since Holmes was following a playbook used by dozens of tech CEOs, why is she the only one to face prosecution when a company becomes engulfed in a scandal?" To Ellen Pao, the former CEO of Reddit, who is a vocal critic of gender discrimination in tech, sexism is partially to blame. "When you see which CEOs get to continue to wreak havoc on consumers and the market, it's people who look like the venture capitalists, who are mostly white men," Pao said. She points to Adam Neumann, who drove WeWork into the ground; former Uber CEO Travis Kalanick, who resigned after a sexual harassment scandal; and Juul's Kevin Burns, who stepped down amid questions over the company's role in stoking the youth vaping epidemic. There were lawsuits, settlements and more fallout — but notably, Pao points out, no criminal prosecutions.
"That all these people continue to lead their lives and not be held accountable for all the harm that they've caused, it does send a message," she said.
Former prosecutors who have tried white-collar crime say there are several reasons why Holmes stands out among disgraced tech CEOs. First, the allegedly fraudulent behavior was egregious: Holmes told the world she had a miracle machine that would upend laboratory science. Prosecutors say, compared with her claims, the technology barely did anything at all. Mark MacDougall, a former federal prosecutor who focused on fraud cases in the U.S. Justice Department, said Theranos' being a biotech company raised the stakes. "It allows the government to contend, with some evidence, that the health of private citizens, the health of innocent people, was put at risk," MacDougall said. Another reason Holmes was charged, according to former prosecutors, was that the government says it obtained evidence that she acted intentionally, which can be difficult to establish in fraud cases.
Prosecutors now plan to show Holmes "knowingly and intentionally" defrauded investors and patients, "something her defense team says is false," the article points out. "Proving that Holmes is guilty will turn on demonstrating her intent, since exaggerating a product's potential, missing financial forecasts and running a secretive company do not constitute federal crimes."
Pao's argument is that Holmes "was encouraged by the high-risk, high-reward culture of venture capital. That said, Pao said she is not defending Holmes, saying her behavior warranted prosecution."
"At the same time, Pao wants a broader discussion in Silicon Valley about why other CEOs accused of wrongdoing have not faced criminal consequences."
But they add that in Silicon Valley, the trial has launched this debate. "Since Holmes was following a playbook used by dozens of tech CEOs, why is she the only one to face prosecution when a company becomes engulfed in a scandal?" To Ellen Pao, the former CEO of Reddit, who is a vocal critic of gender discrimination in tech, sexism is partially to blame. "When you see which CEOs get to continue to wreak havoc on consumers and the market, it's people who look like the venture capitalists, who are mostly white men," Pao said. She points to Adam Neumann, who drove WeWork into the ground; former Uber CEO Travis Kalanick, who resigned after a sexual harassment scandal; and Juul's Kevin Burns, who stepped down amid questions over the company's role in stoking the youth vaping epidemic. There were lawsuits, settlements and more fallout — but notably, Pao points out, no criminal prosecutions.
"That all these people continue to lead their lives and not be held accountable for all the harm that they've caused, it does send a message," she said.
Former prosecutors who have tried white-collar crime say there are several reasons why Holmes stands out among disgraced tech CEOs. First, the allegedly fraudulent behavior was egregious: Holmes told the world she had a miracle machine that would upend laboratory science. Prosecutors say, compared with her claims, the technology barely did anything at all. Mark MacDougall, a former federal prosecutor who focused on fraud cases in the U.S. Justice Department, said Theranos' being a biotech company raised the stakes. "It allows the government to contend, with some evidence, that the health of private citizens, the health of innocent people, was put at risk," MacDougall said. Another reason Holmes was charged, according to former prosecutors, was that the government says it obtained evidence that she acted intentionally, which can be difficult to establish in fraud cases.
Prosecutors now plan to show Holmes "knowingly and intentionally" defrauded investors and patients, "something her defense team says is false," the article points out. "Proving that Holmes is guilty will turn on demonstrating her intent, since exaggerating a product's potential, missing financial forecasts and running a secretive company do not constitute federal crimes."
Pao's argument is that Holmes "was encouraged by the high-risk, high-reward culture of venture capital. That said, Pao said she is not defending Holmes, saying her behavior warranted prosecution."
"At the same time, Pao wants a broader discussion in Silicon Valley about why other CEOs accused of wrongdoing have not faced criminal consequences."
How does anyone take Pao seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How does anyone take Pao seriously? (Score:4, Funny)
| This isn't about sexism.
No one said this was about sexism. They're just doing this because she is black.
Re: (Score:2)
Elizabeth Holmes is black? Did she undergo the Rachel Dolezal procedure?
Re: How does anyone take Pao seriously? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: How does anyone take Pao seriously? (Score:5, Informative)
That was in 2011, everybody knew about her involvement with Jeffery Epstein, who had already by that time been convinced, 'sentenced, released and was living in NYC at the time, likely even still associating together. Ellen Pao did not 'witness a crime and fail to report it' as you seem to imply, but was aghast at being at a social event with a person who should have been jailed and clearly wanted to tell people she the was uncomfortable with it.
As hyperventilating over nothing seem to be worthy of a +5 Informative, Pao must really have some haters
Re: (Score:3)
People have been fired merely for showing up at Epstein parties. Bill Gates got divorced because of it.
Why hasn't Pao?
Re: (Score:3)
People have been fired merely for showing up at Epstein parties. Bill Gates got divorced because of it.
Why hasn't Pao?
Maybe because the party she went to wasn't an Epstein party, it was a Kleiner Perkins party that Maxwell just happened to turn up to as well?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And that's different then the Clinton's how? Or the British Royalty. Sure the list goes on and we will never know a fraction of the truth.
It's just our elite doing what the elite do, which is whatever the fuck they want.
Re: How does anyone take Pao seriously? (Score:3)
Read the tweet. Pao is not talking about Epstein. She is talking about Maxwell who was indicted only last year.
Nobody said she witnessed a crime. She explicitly admits she knew about the crime. In most jurisdictions, knowing a crime took place but failing to report it is an offence.
Re: How does anyone take Pao seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pao must really have some haters
Yeah, that happens when you play the sexism card to defend someone on trial against fraud while ignoring the many people of the opposite sex who also faced trial.
Trevor Milton, anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How does anyone take Pao seriously? (Score:5, Informative)
while there are others that warrant prosecution
Can you name a few?
Which other tech CEOs "knowingly and intentionally defrauded investors"?
Plenty of tech CEOs were wrong. Plenty were overly optimistic about their prospects. But that isn't illegal.
Holmes deliberately faked data and lied to her investors, not just about future prospects but about current activities. That is a crime.
Can you specifically name any other tech CEOs that did that and "got away with it"?
TFA names Adam Neumann of WeWork, Travis Kalanick of Uber, and Kevin Burns of Juul. They may have made unrealistically rosy predictions of future success, but there is no clear evidence that they intentionally faked current financial data. WeWork collapsed in large part because their S-1 was too honest, rather than deceptive. Uber is a public company with audited financial statements available to anyone.
Re: (Score:3)
You ought to add that she lied to patients.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Adam was faking financial data and company records.
Do you have a citation that he provided fake financial data to investors?
As a private company, WeWork can lie to the public.
That ended when WeWork filed its S-1. An S-1 is required to be scrupulously honest, and by all accounts, WeWork's S-1 was very honest. It is that honesty that caused WeWork's collapse.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you name a few?
Ones which are or aren't being prosecuted? I see someone mentioned Elon and you rightfully fended that one off, but how about Trevor Milton? Nikola lied about the past with his truck rolling down hill and is rightfully getting fucked for it. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/2... [cnbc.com]
Re:How does anyone take Pao seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Being wrong about the future is very different from lying about the past.
The biggest difference is that one is a crime and the other is not.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>he is convinced that it will upgrade in the near future to have full self-driving.
>in the near future
>future
And then it of course follows that...
>Musk is not lying about future products. He is lying about an existing product.
Right. Of course he is.
Re: (Score:2)
Saying, "buy this now and in the near future it will do x" is straight up fraud if it will not actually do x in the near future. It doesn't matter if he was just wrong or if he was lying. It's incumbent upon him to either get the prediction right or refrain from making the prediction.
The point is that he has sold these products for years and time and again we have passed his predicted time frame of the self-driving updates becoming a reality. Meanwhile, these Tesla owners who forked out money for these cars
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bit over broad. The prediction needs to be in good faith, that is you have reason to believe it will happen beyond "anything can happen" and you need to make an actual effort to cause it to happen. It's fair to add that you not know of any reason it CAN'T happen (defies the laws of physics, etc).
None of that tripped up Theranos. The real sticking point is that Holmes and Theranos made materially false statements about their current results.
Looking at Tesla and Musk, He certainly seems to believe it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that Holmes is guilty of a much worse crime. However, I do think Tesla owners have a strong case against Musk if they wished to bring a class action suit.
Musk is primarily guilty of not knowing when to shut up. It might be ignorance or it might be hubris, but he doesn't seem too concerned with the consequences of his public statements.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People who actually own teslas are thrilled with our cars. Nobody is going to sue because the coffee, while excellent, isn't literally the world's best coffee.
You're really reaching for a reason to hate this guy. I've noticed that when people want something they can't have they go looking for absurd reasons to dislike it as a form of mental insulation.
Re: (Score:2)
I am guessing you haven't seen the current Beta version of Self Driving in action. It is actually rather good. It isn't full Level 5, but a good Level 3. The current is a Level 2. I am not trying to convince you that you should put down money on the feature, as it is really expensive and you are getting a feature that you hope will come to you before you sell your car. But using that as an example of the issue of Corporate Greed isn't the best one. Because there has been progress and improvement over
Re: (Score:2)
But did he use other cars to fake it to look like the Teslas were actually self driving cars?
From what I remember, Holmes tried to make it look like Tharanos was actually a working product by using other machines to analyze the blood samples.
Re:How does anyone take Pao seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. She's not the norm. There is a big difference between having the technology and needing to scale up and not having anything. Failing to scale up is something that happens to businesses and start-ups all the time. Failing to capture market share or gain traction happens all the time. Bad business decisions or poor execution is not criminal.
What Holmes did is similar to claiming to "have" the next gen battery. Then creating a demo to shown to investors with a secret wire under the table powering it to make it LOOK like it has 5x the performance of the current best tech. This would be fraud. If you take huge sums of money based on this fake demo, you are stealing. This is criminal. This is not a case of needing to "work out the kinks" later. Thinking of Silicon Valley CEOs - Apple knows how to work out the kinks in the barely functioning, carefully choreographed demo that Tim Cook shows the world, and 6 months after release everything works about as planned. Is the Apple demo completely rigged? Yes. Is this criminal fraud? No.
The tech didn't exist. She had no idea how to develop the tech, and she knew it. She may as well have been raising money for a perpetual motion machine. She went to Stanford. She isn't dumb. She knew exactly what she was doing the whole time. She knew the tech didn't exist and the demos were complete fabrications. She looked the world in the face and lied. There is NO excuse.
Re: (Score:2)
What Holmes did is similar to claiming to "have" the next gen battery. Then creating a demo to shown to investors with a secret wire under the table powering it to make it LOOK like it has 5x the performance of the current best tech. This would be fraud.
The fact is, that sort of thing actually happens in tech demos all the time though. Right up to making a mock up of a companies product that's actually their competitors product in a different shell. It may very well be the case that Theranos was especially, egregiously bad about it, but the industry is absolutely full of this sort of thing and it usually only results in lawsuits and slaps on the wrist at worse. So, there really is a question of why Theranos is getting this treatment and everyone else is no
Re: (Score:2)
The big difference with Theranos, though, is the FDA.
Carly Fiorina (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No, this isn't about sexism, it's about "sexism", aka "not letting you get away with evil shit". Replace "sexism" with a word of your choice, that other groups in society use for the same reason.
Re: (Score:2)
How does anyone take Pao seriously? No idea. Someone who gets poor reviews and then has the poor judgement to sleep with a co-worker and then cries foul when things don't go according to plan.
Hardly a role model for women in the workplace.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about sexism.
You can clearly see where her major malfunction is: She thinks fraud is the issue here. I mean sure, yeah, fraud is an issue here; however, the real issue is that the fraud was harming and possibly killing people. The whole "death" thing is what makes the Theranos situation different. That is why Holmes is facing criminal proceedings that are materially different than the legal issues the other CEOs were/are experiencing.
Fake it while you make it vs. killing people (Score:2)
I've watched a few documentaries about Theranos and Holmes. And I kind of had the same reaction as Pao... until a certain point
It went like:
* She dropped out of college dripping with ambition ==> Ok, what's new
* She had this grand vision on revolutionizing the medical industry, but had no practical ideas on how to get there ==> So? Did Steve Jobs have practical idea's on the Apple II? Think not.
* She was promoting a company and receiving money on something that didn't exist at all ==> That's fake i
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:wow (Score:4)
> I didn't know having a vagina gave someone the right to skip jail.
Not just jail, but most responsibility. The common term is "pussy pass". It's highly dependent on their attractiveness though.
The most famous cases are when attractive teachers molest underage male students. If the teacher is somewhat attractive the public opinion isn't as harsh and the sentences are quite lenient. Feel free to fact check.
Re: How does anyone take Pao seriously? (Score:3)
half of whom were already FBI plants, as it was just revealed this weekend.
I know I am feeding the Offtopic Troll (mods: Take your pick); but, Citation, or STFU.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...half of whom were already FBI plants, as it was just revealed this weekend.
Oh, ok. So half were FBI plants, the other half were BLM/Antifa and I suppose the _other_ half was reptiloids?
woke bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"Martin Shkreli is currently at the low-security Federal prison in Allenwood, Pennsylvania with an expected release date in late 2023.[9]"
I know it's fashionable to think that this poor woman is being unfairly prosecuted because men always get away with everything.
Except that the reason Holmes is getting attention is because a woman CEO is rare, especially one with such a historic con.
Not because bad men get away with everything. They don't.
Re:woke bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Martin Shkreli isn't the only one.
There have been many white male CEO's who were prosecuted and went to jail over the past 20 years for fraud, lying to investors, and other crimes
Martin Grass of Rite Aid
Jeff Skilling of Enron
Ken Lay of Enron
Joseph Nacchio of Qwest Communications
Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom
John Rigas of Adelphia Communications
Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco
Bernie Madoff [wikipedia.org]
Allen Stanford [wikipedia.org]
Richard J. Randolph [secretservice.gov]
Sanjay Kumar of Computer Associates
Walter Forbes of Cendant
Sam Waksal of ImClone
Godwin's law corollary (corollumpy) (Score:2)
NY real estate laws saved a few others.
Re: (Score:2)
Are those really great examples though? Take Bernie Madoff as an example. His entire business was a giant scam for decades. At least 17 years, but probably more like 30 in reality. It was an obvious scam to many people who profited from it, but very few were prosecuted.
There's a similar theme with many of the names you listed. They got away with it for years and years and most of their co-conspirators dodged any charges.
Re: woke bullshit (Score:3)
Or perhaps she is being prosecuted because she conducted fraud on a massive scale. It is not that complicated.
Re: (Score:3)
Why? (Score:3)
When all you have is a hammer (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:When all you have is a hammer (Score:5, Interesting)
Everything looks like a sexist nail.
You forgot Ellen Pao says it is white men - so it's racist too.
Hrm (Score:2)
She's the CEO facing prosecution because the man also facing prosecution for the same scam had a different, lower title?
This is a pretty weak story.
Re:Hrm (Score:4)
She's the CEO facing prosecution because the man also facing prosecution for the same scam had a different, lower title?
This is a pretty weak story.
While providing for clickbait, this offers some proof that the woke left can be almost as reality denying as the most fervent Trumpers.
A man involved in the same crime? "The patriarchy is persecuting innocent women again!"
Continued recounts and audits almost a year later that are increasing Biden's lead over Trump? "More proof that the election was stolen!"
Woke women are proven to be as racist and sexist as far right men.
Re: (Score:2)
The CEO of reddit is not a fucking CEO whose job is to generate attention for the company. That makes her part of the rich, ruling class. Not a "woke" this, or "woke" that.
You're just a Trumper with your head stuck in a bag of disinformation, and you can't see anything but Woke Lizard People and Trump's giant six-pack abs.
wimens are really scary!
I don't know what she said about you, but I'll bet it was true. Get over it. Learn to stop blaming and grow a little.
Re: (Score:2)
So maybe the dude should be the one taking the fall because he is...a dude and not a 'declared female'....
Perhaps the next argument out of Pao might be: Why prosecute Holmes? She is BLACK.
Maybe he could start identifying as non-binary and escape prosecution?
shareholder lawsuits to hold boards accountable? (Score:3)
It's worth reading the lengthy decision in this lawsuit:, shareholders v Boeing's board and executives https://cases.justia.com/delaw... [justia.com] The ruling talks about the high bar for shareholder lawsuits, and then lays down how the plaintiffs (shareholders) met that bar.
Maybe we should 'lower the bar' for such lawsuits. I was disappointed that the ruling excluded holding Boeing's board responsible/liable for giving the CEO a 'golden parachute' versus termination-for-cause.
Re: (Score:3)
Collective responsibility shouldn't be immunity from personal actions (the basis for successful |Enron appeals). Enron's appeals and the mid-90s lawsuit against Microsoft show how protected corps are.
Because she could have killed people (Score:5, Insightful)
How dumb do you have to be to see a difference between overpromising and intentionally inflicting flawed medical treatments because of defective medical devices that don't work at all (Holmes). And even the Neuman types actually produced a product. A stupid product, sure. But if WeWork properties collapsed on their users or they served poison coffee, you can bet Neuman would be facing criminal charges.
It's not a crime hype a stupid idea. Theraos wasn't a stupid idea. It was a fraud. And a dangerous one at that.
Re: (Score:2)
Enron was fraud, but there were many successful appeals against convictions on the grounds of collective responsibility.
Re:Because she could have killed people (Score:4, Informative)
Enron was fraud, but there were many successful appeals against convictions on the grounds of collective responsibility.
I'm pretty familiar with Enron fraud :-)
The successful appeals weren't on the grounds of collective responsibility. They were because the convictions were based on "honest services", which is a relatively vague law that means you are supposed to do the right thing. It's not fraud directly, but sort of indirectly, and it wasn't often applied to private sector employees (and that was what was appealed). Lots of people still went to jail from Enron.
Re: (Score:2)
Fundamentally this is al
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what she's being charged for, and the victims of the crime you mention aren't the ones bringing this case. Ultimately this has *nothing* to do with killing people and everything to do with simple fraud.
The reality is Ellen is being hugely disingenuous. There's a frigging world of difference between the "overpromise playbook" and what Holmes has done, and it has nothing to do with what's between her legs. Most of the silicon valley tech failures are just general failures. VCs are free to fund what
I think a lot of this is wealth jealousy (Score:2)
Most companies crash and burn, some exploding like fireworks, others fizzling. Invested money goes to zero either way. A number succeed for a while.
Caveat emptor.
The current witch hunt to crucify rich tech CEOs is a symptom of growing social tension due to growing wealth gaps. One thing about witch hunts though. They're more irrational and full of lies and arbitrary injustice than th
It has to be earned (Score:2)
The prisons are full of dudes, why are women so underrepresented? Because things has to be earned in life.
Be careful what you wish for (Score:2)
It's probably going to be a while before the statute of limitations expires from when Pao was a CEO.
The pass (Score:5, Informative)
Instead of claiming that the Patriarchy in yet another attempt to keep women away from the workplace, how about showing us the evidence of how men have done the same things as these poor persecuted women have done, and gotten away with it.
And Pao is not only incompetent, and proven to have fucked a guy for promotion, she is about as racist and sexist as you can get.
Strong brave independent women who are always the victims of "White" men.
Other CEOs merely deprived people of money (Score:2)
Startup CEOs do routinely over-promise, and most of the time, they outright lie, costing investors and credulous customers money. Holmes cost people their health and possibly their very lives. That's not to say the others shouldn't be in hot water, but there is a very real difference.
Conspiracy theory good when SEXIST conspiracy (Score:2)
Conspiracy theory bad
But wait!
Conspiracy theory good when SEXIST MEN conspiracy
It is indeed a good question (Score:2)
Why Ellen Pao wasn't prosecuted.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should she have been?
Bad Blood (Score:2)
The answer to the question can be found in the book "Bad Blood", by John Carreyrou. It's a fascinating/disturbing read.
Holmes is getting prosecuted because she (a) bilked a lot high profile people out of a lot of money, (b) did so in a very public way, (c) while ignoring a long set of warnings from her underlings, and (d) in doing so mislead / hurt people in their medical decisions and treatment.
Doing 'a' through 'c' might seem common enough (although she really excelled in how well she did them, even by Si
Chairman Pao is almost right (Score:3)
Yeah, it's sexism, but not in the decision to prosecute her. It's sexism that allowed a college drop out with no relevant experience to be cheered on by the media and corporate America as she defrauded hundreds of millions, apparently because her company was going to introduce to blood testing something equivalent to zero point energy. Sexism, in the form of feminism, is what got her into this mess.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Chairman Pao is almost right (Score:2)
And I'm sure there are many white male CEOs who were lauded by the media, with gender and race being explicitly cited and celebrated.
I'm having difficulties finding some examples. Do you have some to hand?
Great point ruined by your rhetoric (Score:2)
Yeah, it's sexism, but not in the decision to prosecute her. It's sexism that allowed a college drop out with no relevant experience to be cheered on by the media and corporate America as she defrauded hundreds of millions, apparently because her company was going to introduce to blood testing something equivalent to zero point energy. Sexism, in the form of feminism, is what got her into this mess.
It's a real bummer you had a great point and had to ruin it by being an asshole. Some advice. My guess is you're right of center on most things. If you want to persuade more in the center and even to the left, avoid stupid insults like "Chairman Pao"
If you need a "nickname" to make your point, your point is shit and you're lazy. Only assholes rely on stupid nicknames and puns. Also, don't whine about feminism. Holmes is a grifter and a piece of shit. She undoubted used her gender to get more atten
Re: Great point ruined by your rhetoric (Score:5, Insightful)
Calling her Chairman Pao as a mark of contempt weakens my points, yet calling me an arsehole, suggesting I seem like an incel, is fine for you?
As well as that contradiction, You've not argued a single point. Your post comes across as somebody who's offended and is rushing to express your offence before your brain interferes with the process.
Because most crooks among the super wealthy (Score:5, Insightful)
The part that pisses me off is that the ultra wealthy have all these protections for themselves but anytime you suggest getting those protections for Joe Blow everybody in his grandma starts screaming about bureaucrats.
Reminds me of Leona Helmsley (Score:4, Interesting)
Up until the end she was a despicable woman. She was quoted as saying "We don't pay taxes; only the little people pay taxes."
Yet many are pretty sure sexism had to do with her downfall. Many of her "creative accounting" practices were widely used by many businesses at that time. One of the tax frauds she was found guilty of really came into question whether there was some sort of vendetta against her. It was for one of her companies not paying 1/16 more taxes than they already paid. To put this into perspective...You owe $300 in taxes and are put in jail because you didn't pay 18.75 more. While in the Helmsley case it was in the millions, this still comes into question the motivations. Her claim of sending someone down with a checkbook to take care of the discrepancy was verified by the IRS themselves.
It needs to be noted after her prison stay she became a different more charitable woman.
WIKI: Although Helmsley had a reputation as the "Queen of Mean", some considered her generous in her charitable contributions after her prison term. After the 9/11 attacks, Helmsley donated $5 million to help the families of New York City firefighters and police. Other contributions included $25 million to New York–Presbyterian Hospital for medical research in 2006 through a charitable trust fund, the donations eventually grew to $65 million to establish the Center for Advanced Digestive Care at the hospital in 2009.
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno.
People who weren't as egregious as her also donated. And even with her "generosity", it ended up being less than 1% of her wealth. Some people tithe more. She left her dog more than she did the firefighters.
Not to mention her 16 year prison sentence was reduced to 19 months and two years house arrest. Beyond "only little people pay taxes", she is also the poster child for only little people bear the full brunt of the legal system.
Not to discount anyone's charity, but I don't think it gives you a pass
Because ... (Score:2)
geez (Score:3)
Pao is the racist here (Score:3)
I honestly do not understand how people like Pao get a free pass reviling one very specific category of race and gender.
For non-USAians, this makes no sense, just as the so-called N-word is heavily used in one genre of so-called music, but woe betide anyone else using it even in a quotation.
Smacks of hypocrisy.
Missing something? (Score:2)
"Proving that Holmes is guilty will turn on demonstrating her intent, since exaggerating a product's potential, missing financial forecasts and running a secretive company do not constitute federal crimes."
It's like the writer of this article doesn't even know the basics of this story or case. Exaggerating? Um, she took blood samples out of her machine (which she knew did not work), and placed them into machines made by other companies that did work. She then claimed those results were from her machine. That is is without a shadow of a doubt intentional fraud, and she needs to be locked up for that, especially considering the fact that this was screwing with the health of people relying on these non-funct
Medical fraud (Score:3)
Prosecute more company executives (Score:2)
I'm what you would call a grey beard, and recall the savings and loan crisis of the '80s and '90s. Executives of these institutions actually went to Federal Pound Me in the Ass Prison for their deeds. I was appalled and angered that this didn't happen with the same class of assholes after the banking crisis of '07-'08. Mostly only fines were issued. Fines don't deter these assholes as they don't pay them, the companies, and ultimately we the consumers, do.
More corporate heads need to roll for corporate crim
Women don't make great criminals (Score:2)
Who cares about WeWork? (Score:2)
Thera is was toying with peoples health and their lives; WeWork was simply a real estate scam. Yes other tech moguls should face prosecution but come on, Holmes was fucking evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Theranos- fucking iPad spellcheck
regulated industry (Score:3)
Hey Ellen, you idiot, Holmes started working in a regulated industry providing medical test results. This is completely different than most tech startups where no one gets sick, dies, or gets the wrong treatment when the product fails.
What you are saying is that tech CEOs lie, including yourself so it should be okay. But just keep up with your own gender and race bias.
Re: (Score:3)
I do not want to live in a police state that looks out for one segment of the population while ignoring violent crime occurring against another. It costs millions of dollars to do politically motivated CEO witch hunting and nothing useful comes out if it. In the end the little guy pays. Meanwhile, what is the homicide rate in Chicago?
I fail to see how anything in this article or discussion suggests we can't walk and chew gum at the same time. I'm not in favor of ignoring some crimes (especially homicides) and prosecuting others. I'm not sure, but I would not be surprised if prosecuting white-collar crime is expensive, perhaps even more expensive than some violent crimes. But white-collar crimes still need to be prosecuted. Society cannot abide criminals, and that includes thieves.
Re:No thanks (Score:4, Informative)
Holmes has a very high net worth even after the collapse of Theranos.
Prosecutors should be able to claw back some of that money, especially if she takes a plea deal to pay a big fine in lieu of going to prison.
So her prosecution will be self-funding.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. Thanks for the improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
Just in the medical field, we have the Purdue Pharma family, whose net worth is projected to increase despite making annual payments to the federal court.
And a quick Google search gives: "Sep 2, 2009 — This is the largest civil fraud settlement in history against a pharmaceutical company. As part of the settlement, Pfizer also has agreed to..."
The circus attention to the Theranos trial, and having George Shultz and the like on her board, notwithstanding, she did the crime, and patients suffered. This
Re:Criminality requires evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Criminality requires evidence, full stop.
This is where the "Internet legal system" has problems. As trusted sources of online information disappear behind paywalls, we have taken to using less reliable data providers, such as Dan Fogleberg on nuclear physics and Nicki Minaj on immunology.
Today's Internet is not used to making judgements that require evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
For me the bankruptcy of Theranos is perfectly ok and just like any other big startup that goes belly up.
Ok some billionaires lose some money. Big deal. What part of venture capital is not clear to you?
Where I draw the line is that innocent clients received test results on important health questions that were totally bogus!
You sell a product that doesn't work? That's nothing new. Think about MS Zune, Apple Newton, Windows 1.0.
You give totally bogus health advise? That's a big no no in my book.
Re: (Score:2)
Charles Babbage could not perfect his Difference Engine because engineering at the time could not quite achieve the tolerances he needed.
What if he had just made it bigger?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not An Anomaly (Score:5, Interesting)
Cruel, but not fraud.
Possibly fraud. Is that strawman company also risking people's lives?
Do people get rides by paying for them? Yes they do, so the product is not a fraud. Do they cook their books? If not, then it's not even fraud to the investors.
Yes it is. But does Facebook let people have web pages? Yes, so the product is not a fraud. Is it exploitative and privacy-invading? Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Or any other AI startup without a real product?
Selling someone an idea and attempting to actually build it isn't fraud. Lying about how you got to where you are is. Lying about how you're spending investor money is.
Holmes sold vaporware and it put human lives at risk.
Holmes is neither being charged with selling vaporware, nor being charged with anything relating to human lives. Her crime is knowing just how shit her product is and covering it up, not failing to deliver on a promise in the future or risking someone's life.
Maybe look up fraud in the dictionary. I think it will clear up a lot of the question