Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Crime

Court Orders Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes To Go To Prison (cnbc.com) 107

Posted by BeauHD from the time-to-make-new-friends dept.
Disgraced Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes has been ordered to report to prison while she appeals her fraud conviction and jail sentence of over 11 years for defrauding investors. She has also been ordered to pay $452 million to victims, which will be split with her former partner, Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani, who was also convicted and sentenced to 13 years in prison. CNBC reports: Elizabeth Holmes, the disgraced CEO of Theranos, must report to prison on May 30, according to a ruling issued Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Edward Davila. Holmes must report to prison no later than 2:00 p.m. local time on that day, and is expected to begin her sentence at a minimum-security facility in Bryan, Texas. On Tuesday, an appeals court rejected Holmes' bid to stay out of prison while she appeals her conviction. In another Tuesday ruling, Judge Davila ordered that Holmes and former Theranos executive Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani pay $452 million in restitution to victims. You can read more about the 'U.S. v. Elizabeth Holmes, et al.' case here.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Court Orders Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes To Go To Prison More

Court Orders Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes To Go To Prison

Comments Filter:

  • Good (Score:2)

    by Volda ( 1113105 )
    Don't let the door hit you on the way in.

  • Finally (Score:5, Funny)

    by sysrammer ( 446839 ) on Wednesday May 17, 2023 @04:32PM (#63530501) Homepage

    Finally, a feel-good story on /.

  • So they gave her enough time to run. I would bet money she is going hop on a plane and attempt to disappear.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by jwhyche ( 6192 )

      So they gave her enough time to run. I would bet money she is going hop on a plane and attempt to disappear.

      This is the part I don't understand. She had plenty of time and money to at least make a half ass attempt to run. If I was running a multibillion dollar scam, I would have had a way out prepared. Set up a few shell companies and squirrel away a few million in foreign bank accounts. Then as soon as I sniff the jig is up, I'm gone.

      Or that is what I think I would do. I'm not a criminal master mind. I'd probably be parked in a no parking spot and get my car towed as I was trying to make a getaway.

      • I don't think she qualifies as a criminal mastermind. In fact I haven't seen her demonstrate competence at anything. However, in fairness, she might have a very good getaway plan that she hasn't shared as keeping these things secret is a necessary part of success. For the amount of money she stole, presumably she could have millions parked somewhere. But if she flees now, she will be wanted forever. On the other hand, she could do a few years in Club Fed, come out having "paid her debt to society" (but
      • It wasn't that kind of scam. She figured they'd get it working and everything would be great.
      • There's not really anywhere you can run to.

    • Re:In 2 weeks on May 30 (Score:5, Informative)

      by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Wednesday May 17, 2023 @05:58PM (#63530781)

      So they gave her enough time to run. I would bet money she is going hop on a plane and attempt to disappear.

      They yanked her passport after she tried to flee to Mexico on a one-way ticket "for a friend's wedding" back in January, after being convicted. (I noted this elsewhere with news links.)

  • Let's them team up in jail, and see what kind of product they come up with.
  • I wonder if she will get credited for time whining about it?

  • As a tool I volunteer.

  • What exactly does society get out of sending her to prison? It would be relatively easy to keep her from any job above middle manager with no decision making ability for whatever company might hire her (if any will). It's not like she's physically dangerous. Nor is this going to deter anyone from committing crimes. She didn't get in trouble for what she did, she got in trouble for who she did it to.

    But moreover, should we be using prison to deter crimes?

    Stick with me on this. Why don't people want t

    • Re:Time to spend some Kharma (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Wednesday May 17, 2023 @05:37PM (#63530681)

      What exactly does society get out of sending her to prison?

      To prevent others from committing fraud. If you let people get away with blatant crimes, then why even have jail for anyone? This isn't just about repaying investors (will never happen either) but if there's no punitive penalty then that gives a big message to other criminals that they'll also get a slap on the wrist when they commit fraud.

      You may as well ask why Bernie Madoff is in jail, or Ken Lay, or Martin Shkreli, or anyone else that went to jail while being rich enough to have a good lawyer. Or maybe someone thinks only poor people should be in jail?

      • For centuries. But we still have fraud. I know that's not an entirely appropriate argument but it does make us at least question the efficacy of prison at deterring crime.

        At no point did I say we let her get away with it. But I'm saying is that we can easily prevent her from committing any more fraud. Limit the jobs she's allowed to have and monitor her and those jobs. It would be both less expensive and more humane than prison.. the point being that she's not an active threat to the community in a way

        • Well, it is the American legal system. There may be better ways of doing things. We know the death penalty doesn't work, and so most civilized countries have dropped that. Many systems have adopted a more reform and rehabilitation approach. However there still needs to be some punitive portion of a criminal sentence, something a bit stronger than "you can't be a CEO for X years". Even then the punitive portion may not be deterring criminals too much. This is all a different conversation though.

          However

          • I'm saying the rules are fundamentally wrong. It shouldn't be applied to anyone. Even people deemed to dangerous to release should be made as comfortable as we can. We should look at them as failures in our ability to raise citizens. Not as individuals to be hurt in the pursuit of some unspecified collective good or some vague notion of retributive justice.

            I think that's the problem. I don't know any way to communicate this idea without people thinking about someone they don't like (often for a good rea
        • This argument was tried in the state of California. We've been putting people in jail for stealing for centuries, but we still have theft. So let's make shoplifting legal. So far it isn't going well.
          • I didn't say make it legal, I said don't put people in prison for crimes unless they are an active and continual threat to the community.

            If you want to stop shoplifting (besides the occasional kid doing it for a thrill or a dare) you address underlining causes. Look at the stuff being locked up now. It's baby formula, diapers and medicine. Maybe do something about people who don't have baby formula and you won't have shoplifting.

            Meanwhile we're using a form of torture to control behavior. That doesn
            • Your post has some valid points but, unfortunately, your statements are not consistent with the fact of either the Holmes case nor the California theft situation. The people who are stealing things in California are not indigent mothers. They are part of organized retail theft crime rings who steal from brick and mortar retailers and then resell the goods online at a discount. Those in need of formula and diapers benefit only from the small discount. The people doing the stealing get paid in small quant

        • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

          by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

          For centuries. But we still have fraud. I know that's not an entirely appropriate argument

          That is a stupid argument. Nothing is perfect and won't ever be. If you want to make an sensible argument find some externality corrected dataset showing the fraud rate before and after introduction of laws against it. It's not just not an "entirely appropriate argument", it's outright nonsensical.

        • You can consider as example Jerome Kerviel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] trader at Societe Generale in Paris, who committed fraud for about 4,9 billion euros. He was sentenced to 3 years in jail, served 5 months. His punishment was mostly financial. He cannot profit from his story (the bank can claim anything he earns to repay the damage). He gave some talks about the dangers of the financial markets, at a point he made a walking pilgrimage to meet with the Pope in Rome. He lives free but his financial

          • Your description is inaccurate, and his case was totally different from Holmes'. He was just a trader, and the only way he was hoping to profit from his fraud was by being remarked by his bosses (and generally attracting positive attention to himself).

            Not unlike e.g. stackoverflow repwhores who generate fake traffic to their copypasted crap and upvote themselves with sockpuppets -- if they ever plan to profit financially from their efforts, it could only happen through a long chain of indirections.

            • I did not try to compare them, I was giving an example of why I also think we do not need to have high profile fraudsters in jail for decades. What money fraudsters (and drug traffickers) fear most is not going to jail, it's being poor. I'd rather have fraudsters running free but in an impoverished life without any hope of a better future. Jail, if anything, gives them the opportunity to earn a status as respected criminals. Flipping burgers for minimum wage gives them ridicule; it shows them the nothingnes

      • She subjected thousands of patients to false hope and possible danger, and after she refused to listen to him for 8 years, her chief scientist (who had over 40 years experience) killed himself.

        What you should be asking is, what possible value would Holmes now add to the real world?

        • which I think is what folks get confused and angry at my comment.

          What I'm saying is that we have the capacity to prevent her from causing any further harm. Putting her in prison serves no practical purpose. It's a knee jerk reaction to want to hurt her because she hurt others.

          That's the sort of thing a more primitive species relies on. We're better than that.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by schwit1 ( 797399 )

            She deserves to be punished for being greedy. And knowingly hurting people for money should make the sentence much longer.

            The sentence sends a message to her that there are consequences, it sends a message to those she hurt medically and financially and it sends a message to others that may try to follow in her shoes selling snake oil.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pjt33 ( 739471 )

        You're slightly out of date on Bernie Madoff. He died in prison in 2021.

      • Wait- why are Bernie Madoff and Ken Lay* in jail? Madoff has been dead for two years and Ken Lay has been dead for nearly 20 years! Seems unsanitary to let their corpses rot that long.

        *Actually Ken Lay never went to jail. He died of a heart attack before he could be sentenced.

      • We also get to stop hearing about her.

    • I somewhat agree actually. There are a lot more people to blame for this besides her, including the investors, the media and the slimy politicians like Hillary Clinton who appeared alongside Holmes to show how "glass ceiling" can be broken, including presumably by Clinton in the upcoming elections. Ultimately it is the society that worships technology and quick fixes that is to blame. As the Theranos whistleblower said, "I can see how this environment can create an Elizabeth Holmes."

      To me it would have been

      • you're mixing up reparations with punishment.

        Also, you'd have a hard time linking her family to the crime in order to go after them. It's possible, but you don't want to live in a justice system where it's easy.

        Finally, you're still jonesing to torture her. I can tell from the comment about "living like paupers". The degree of torture is what seems reasonable to you, but make no mistake, you still want her to be hurt.

        I realize I'm not making any friends here by saying this, but that's wrong. Hum

        • Re:You're mixing things up (Score:4)

          by iMadeGhostzilla ( 1851560 ) on Wednesday May 17, 2023 @09:08PM (#63531221)

          Paying reparations for the rest of your life is not torture, but that's besides the point. She forfeited her right to be an equal member of the society by wrongly injuring other members of the society. She will regain those rights once she serves her semtence, at the cost of her freedom for 11 years.

          EVERY human society in history had to have some sort of punishment for injuring others. It's necessary to preserve the society. The measure of civility is how just, how compassionate, how not unnecessarily cruel the punishment is. But it has to be there.

          • not being paid. You're dodging my questions.

            Prison is torture. Not reparations. Prison. It is by definition. If it wasn't torture you wouldn't send her there. Because it wouldn't be unpleasant and/or painful.

            I'm saying I don't want her (or anyone who isn't an immediate threat to the community) sent to prison. We shouldn't be using torture to make people behave. We're better than that. Or we should be anyway.

            • I have already said it: my sense of justice is that she in particular should not go to prison but be forced to work for the rest of his life to repay, along with her wealthy family, the $480M to the victims. Some people on the other hand should go to prison. But I don't call the shots: the society does, and within those constraints I find it more just that she goes to prison than that she is left off the hook.

              Punishing those who injure the society is necesary for the good of the society. The society is more

      • Elizabeth Holmes, a Clinton donor who was named a Presidential Ambassador for Global Entrepreneurship under former President Barack Obama, ...

    • How about if I were to break into your home, tie you and your family up, steal your belongings, shoot your dog, pee on your rug, and then set the house on fire?

      Why should I be punished for that? What would society get from sending me to prison from life?
    • I think executives are actually afraid of going to jail. It's not something you can always buy your way out of, and rich people love buying things.

      • It is in fact the only thing that the executive criminal class are afraid of. Fines? Just the cost of doing business (and there is usually an excellent ROI on fines). House arrest? The penalty of living in luxury. But spending Prisoner 23846938 is not something they can finesse, even if it is in Club Fed. That is why the system has been rigged such that actual jail time for C-Suite crimes is so rare.

    • Don't do the crime, if you can't do the crime!

    • Without a deterrent, a conman will continue conning people, if caught, give back the mark's loot, move onto the next victim. Someone working in cybersecurity, why practice responsible reporting. sell the exploits to the highest bidder on the dark web, worst case scenario you just have to give back what you got for it? Heck, they won't catch you on all of these, and if the ones that you do get caught on have no long term consequences because someone might define them as torture, why not? Furthermore, your ex

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by indytx ( 825419 )

      What exactly does society get out of sending her to prison? . . . She didn't get in trouble for what she did, she got in trouble for who she did it to.

      But moreover, should we be using prison to deter crimes?

      This has been a crazy story since it was broken by the WSJ. Have you followed this news AT ALL? The blood testing machine that she "developed" was a total fraud from the beginning. Again, it was a SHAM. She's not just a crook, she probably HURT people. Her company defrauded Walgreens, and Walgreens set up testing centers based on that fraud. We will probably never know how many people got tested and thought that everything was okay because the magical Edison machine said they were okay, and instead they wer

      • they points are:

        1. Why put her in prison when we can prevent her from committing any more crimes just by putting her on lifetime probation?

        2. If the answer is "she deserves it" aren't we just punishing her for the sake of punishment?

        3. If your answer to #2 is "it's for a deterrent" than aren't you causing pain and suffering for the sake of an end goal? And how is that not torture?

        4. Finally, if you're OK with torture, why do you stop there? Why not break out the pain ray and keep her in agony

  • Now have a look at all the twats that heralded her as the genius she never was. At the very least a strong public shaming is in order.

    • Quite. She deserves far more than that though. Send her to a penal colony and be done with her.

    • Those twats claimed she was a genius when it was in their own financial interest. Then they claimed she was a fraudster when that was more convenient.

    • The list of dupes is long. The media and elites tripped over their own feet because she represented precisely what their ideology predicts: the strong confident woman boss who don't need no man, their female Steve Jobs. She knew this and presented herself as such.

      Yes, when the equity crowd talks about supposed glass ceilings and other nonsense then they need to be reminded of this. Their nonsense ideology abetted a fraudster who exploited sick people.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Indeed. I mean all those stories praising her where obviously not credible back then to anybody halfway smart. She did neither have the qualifications nor the experience to be actually able to do what was claimed. Even Einstein, Feynman, Heisenberg and some other certified geniuses rolled together into one person could not have done it from that starting point and in the time she supposedly invested. The whole thing was very much too good to be true. And look, it was not true.

        Really drove it home that hype

        • >Really drove it home that hype of this type is not based on facts but on wishful thinking and cluelessness. I do remember taking flak here for pointing that out back when.

          Yeah, accusations of 'misogyny' etc. I agree, what Theranos claimed was at face value very sketchy. I'm similarly sceptical of Musk's Hyperloop. Anybody with expertise in any field knows that outsiders with no background in the field do not appear on the scene with something that'll practically overturn the field.

    • Those twats apparently are getting their money back with the restitution order.

  • Or go to jail. You decide

  • As Homer Simpson once said (Score:3)

    by TTL0 ( 546351 ) on Thursday May 18, 2023 @03:08AM (#63531665)

    You tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.

  • It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.

    Not every life can be a success, just like not every vessel can be seaworthy. But thereâ(TM)s no shame in being one spectacular shipwreck. (Actually, there is. But weâ(TM)re not going to kick you while youâ(TM)re down, Edmund Fitzgerald.)

    -Despair calendars

  • Excellent, and do not give her parole.

  • Apparently, even long blonde hair has its limits.

  • "We're gonna need a smaller violin!"

Slashdot Top Deals

You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.

Close