By the numbers, the court was probably quite lenient here. Not to say that's an unjust outcome; the "lenient" option for sentencing on serious federal felonies is still quite harsh.
I tracked down the prosecutor's sentencing memorandum; they asked for 15 years. So I guess maybe not that lenient.
Edit to clarify: My statement is more intended to emphasize how overly punishing possession charges rather than to advocate for draconian charges for all offenses.
In the end she goes to jail for being a bad investment for investors and not for the crime of fucking around with peoples health.
The interesting thing politically is if this will be enforced or not, as I am sure there are a lot of Silicon valley founders worrying now. At best they will get some deserved extra scrutiny, at worse will be getting investigated.
I've seen talk about Holmes' political connections, but she surely is too toxic for them to get her a "free pass". She might get relief from somewhere else though?
Federal sentencing guidelines for wire fraud of the size that Ms. Holmes was convicted of recommend 20 years in prison. Ms. Holmes’s lawyers had asked for 18 months of house arrest, while prosecutors sought 15 years and $804 million in restitution for 29 investors."
I think these two cases are sort of parallels: people assumed that someone was a genius to such an extent that they disregarded any signs of fraud and sought little proof of the assertions being made.
Someday we will have to reckon with the fact that SV founder culture encourages this kind of behaviour.
It's not surprising that the one she got got for was the one where she hurt rich people.
"What went wrong? This is sad because Ms. Holmes is brilliant.”
Brilliant of what? Of dressing in black turtleneck and imitating Steve Jobs? Able to lower her voice one octave down?
Was it this?
> Holmes admitted on the stand that Theranos was running blood tests on modified third-party machines without telling its business partners and that she added the logos of two pharmaceutical companies to studies that the company sent to investors.
This seems like everyday, standard startup procedure. Was there a lot more?
Hard to see why stealing billions of your customers money to spend gambling and buying personal items then lying about it multiple time isn't a bigger crime than what those two were sentenced for.
There's always a touch of dishonesty in these ventures -- it's so-called risk -- but when a company no longer is worth anything, how is that supposed to fail blamelessly?
It's a wonder that "Computer (occupation)" never became a corporation with unions so that we'd have a case study of something that clearly should have gone by the wayside with the advent of technology.
Maybe there are some guidelines for business models that even make sense. Apparently Theranos illustrates that "accusing everyone else of being a lazy liar with stagnant investment" isn't workable either.
I shall pay, of course. For you, sir, you can either give directly to Lighthouse Ministries (lfrad.org), or if you want to be sure it's tax-deductible, you can give to Martha's Kitchen in San Jose with a note that it's intended for Lighthouse. (They're a tax-exempt in California but their IRS 501(c)(3) hasn't come through yet.) Martha's acts as financial sponsor for them, which has some legal significance I don't quite understand.
On the other hand her CFO made 50m by the time he was 30. Now he is going to be penniless spending most of his rest of his life in jail.
This type of people prey on the ingenuous and naive, nothing wrong with being ingenuous but for the rest of us, we should also call out the predators like Holmes and try to keep this predators out of society.
2 years for theft of Steve Job's wardrobe
1 year for that ridiculous baritone