Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison during appeal of sentence(abc.net.au)
abc.net.au
Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison during appeal of sentence
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-12/theranos-elizabeth-holmes-loses-bid-to-stay-out-of-prison/102211402
4 comments
I'm honestly surprised someone this wealthy and connected will actually do time.
Honestly: Why are you surprised? This trope that rich people are immune from prison is prevalent on Reddit and other social media every time someone wealthy is arrested for crimes. However I can think of far more examples of someone going to jail/prison than escaping charges. It’s a rare and noteworthy occurrence when someone is caught doing a crime and then gets away with it in a high profile case, but cynical social media commenters act like it’s every single case.
The same thing happened with SBF: The Reddit/HN near-consensus was that he was too rich to ever face consequences, but then the system chugged along and is working just fine.
The same thing happened with SBF: The Reddit/HN near-consensus was that he was too rich to ever face consequences, but then the system chugged along and is working just fine.
White collar crime is down ~26% in the last 5 years: https://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/bulletins/white_collar_crim...
Do you think it’s because it’s more of a hassle to go after people who can afford lawyers or because white collar crime is actually down? I think it’s the former.
Do you think it’s because it’s more of a hassle to go after people who can afford lawyers or because white collar crime is actually down? I think it’s the former.
The question was about people who are caught committing crimes like Holmes and SBF. I was asking why the parent commenter believes that they would be caught, charged, but then never face consequences.
How often are we seeing blatant public crimes by wealthy people (like Holmes, SBF, Epstein, etc) get shrugged off the by system? The parent comment implies that rich people can do crimes in public, get caught, then not suffer the consequences. I’m asking where this belief comes from, because it’s weirdly prevalent on HN, Twitter, Reddit, and other social medias despite not reflecting the realities.
How often are we seeing blatant public crimes by wealthy people (like Holmes, SBF, Epstein, etc) get shrugged off the by system? The parent comment implies that rich people can do crimes in public, get caught, then not suffer the consequences. I’m asking where this belief comes from, because it’s weirdly prevalent on HN, Twitter, Reddit, and other social medias despite not reflecting the realities.
[deleted]
2008 housing crisis, OxyContin lawsuits, Wells Fargos infractions, Epstein, tax enforcement poor vs wealthy, Ohio derailment
Is white collar crime down or are prosecutions of white collar crime down? How can you tell the difference?
I find it hard to believe that in the age of NFTs and dogecoin and whatever crypto bullshit that white collar crimes are down.
I find it hard to believe that in the age of NFTs and dogecoin and whatever crypto bullshit that white collar crimes are down.
> This trope that rich people are immune from prison is prevalent on Reddit and other social media every time someone wealthy is arrested for crimes
It's not a trope, it's a pretty logical thing, sadly. Maybe not entirely immune but, when caught, for any crime, rich people can afford expensive lawyers who'll be able to search for any technicality, loophole, problems with the arrest and so on. That's not even considering corruption like getting a friendly judge because your father/uncle or whatever went to college with the right people.
Imagine the exact same crime, let's say selling cocaine. One person grew up in the ghetto and has to use the free public prosecutor. The other is the son of a millionaire. Which one do think will do more prison time?
It's not a trope, it's a pretty logical thing, sadly. Maybe not entirely immune but, when caught, for any crime, rich people can afford expensive lawyers who'll be able to search for any technicality, loophole, problems with the arrest and so on. That's not even considering corruption like getting a friendly judge because your father/uncle or whatever went to college with the right people.
Imagine the exact same crime, let's say selling cocaine. One person grew up in the ghetto and has to use the free public prosecutor. The other is the son of a millionaire. Which one do think will do more prison time?
> Which one do think will do more prison time?
The claim was that Holmes wouldn’t do any prison time. I’m specifically asking why so many people are convinced that wealthy people suffer no consequences for their crimes, not why they think expensive lawyers can do a better job.
The claim was that Holmes wouldn’t do any prison time. I’m specifically asking why so many people are convinced that wealthy people suffer no consequences for their crimes, not why they think expensive lawyers can do a better job.
Of course rich people are going to be made to pay for it if they conned members of the ruling class. Nobody who think rich people tend to escape justice have ever thought otherwise.
This https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_and_sentencing_of_Robert... is what happens when they don't step on the wrong toes.
This https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_and_sentencing_of_Robert... is what happens when they don't step on the wrong toes.
The belief isn't just that the rich won't go to jail for crimes. Rather, the belief is that the entire system is designed to give the rich incredible leeway not offered to the poor. A basic example would be wage theft, which, despite totaling billions of dollars in theft a year, is only considered a "disorderly person offense." In New Jersey, for instance, theft over $200 is a felony, but this doesn't apply to wage theft, for some reason.
Also, we have a sitting Supreme Court justice who has accepted millions of dollars in "gifts." It doesn't look like anything is going to happen to him. And this type of egregious transgression is just what we know about. It should be clear that Clarence Thomas' behavior is not some crazy outlier. Many politicians seem closer to billionaires than to general members of the public.
Also, we have a sitting Supreme Court justice who has accepted millions of dollars in "gifts." It doesn't look like anything is going to happen to him. And this type of egregious transgression is just what we know about. It should be clear that Clarence Thomas' behavior is not some crazy outlier. Many politicians seem closer to billionaires than to general members of the public.
Past examples for me. College bribery scandal, Jusse Smollet, are two notable examples recently. The wealthy have the best lawyers who have connections to the judges, clerks, and everyone else in those courts. Indeed it is the wealthy that are able to afford to fight the government on even footing.
Serious question: If it was on the other shoe, would most people have remained on bail all this time to have two children after what Elizabeth Holmes did?
Serious question: If it was on the other shoe, would most people have remained on bail all this time to have two children after what Elizabeth Holmes did?
[deleted]
The people she pissed off are wealthier and more connected.
For example, Henry Kissinger (a man I was surprised to learn is still alive) invested ~$6million.
Wow, guy is 100.
This. If it were just a bunch of average joes that lost their money none of this would have happened. “Buyer beware” is the old adage.
But this is a twofer. It also helps ensures that blood tests stay one-offs and cost top dollar for decades to come. It’s cold fusion all over again. Research in the area has suffered a convenient death blow.
But this is a twofer. It also helps ensures that blood tests stay one-offs and cost top dollar for decades to come. It’s cold fusion all over again. Research in the area has suffered a convenient death blow.
Comparing this to cold-fusion seems to me to be a bit of a stretch.
Had she ripped off the poor she’d probably get a lesser sentence.
Yeah, iirc her official crime is fraud with respect to investors. There were a lot of people who got bad diagnosis and none of her charges had anything to do with that.
Also that one time their lab got massively contaminated with ebola dna (apparently less bad than it sounds). No charges for creating an unsafe work environment or misleading public health officials on their ability to meaningfully perform ebola tests at (I think it was) airports.
Ian Gibbons unfortunate death. Silence.
Also that one time their lab got massively contaminated with ebola dna (apparently less bad than it sounds). No charges for creating an unsafe work environment or misleading public health officials on their ability to meaningfully perform ebola tests at (I think it was) airports.
Ian Gibbons unfortunate death. Silence.
It’s only a Reddit-ism that rich people don’t do time. Especially rich people who’s crime is massive fraud, the system works just fine putting them behind bars.
No. See Donald Trump, former president. And he was doing this for decades before he became a republican god. See the numerous examples where he managed to avoid paying people for contracting, for example.
Well she has already tried to run once. She will likely try again, lets wait and see if she pulls it off or not before we mark her down as actually serving time. That she is not ion custody might be an indication that she has paid off the right people to allow her to disappear into some far away country.
Still nursing her stay-out-of-jail baby.
You realize the flee to Mexico story turned out to be fake news and the prosecutors backpedaled?
It did seem to have happened that she bought a ticket though. News stories about her yesterday quoted the judge as explicitly referring to her buying a one way ticket. "Elizabeth Holmes' purchase of a one-way flight to Mexico was a 'bold move,' judge says"
https://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-pl...
https://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-pl...
That's a very generous interpretation. Of course it's what her defense attorney stated, that doesn't make it true. The prosecutor did not "backpedal".
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/theranos-trial-eli...
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/theranos-trial-eli...
Like other said she stole from the rich. Otherwise if she defrauded poor people, it would just have been deemed "doing business" in USA...
As long as you don't try to defraud richer people more connected and powerful than you anything goes in America...
As long as you don't try to defraud richer people more connected and powerful than you anything goes in America...
You may ask: why is this news?
Maybe we are so accustomed to upper class wealthy people committing white collar crime to never be held accountable that it’s news when they actually do serve prison time.
Regarding SBF I’m still appalled how he’s treated with so much leeway, lesser people would be treated quite differently. I still feel like there is really different prison systems for the rich and poor. Maybe I’m wrong.
Maybe we are so accustomed to upper class wealthy people committing white collar crime to never be held accountable that it’s news when they actually do serve prison time.
Regarding SBF I’m still appalled how he’s treated with so much leeway, lesser people would be treated quite differently. I still feel like there is really different prison systems for the rich and poor. Maybe I’m wrong.
White collar criminals do serve prison time. Like the Enron guys or Madoff. What example do you have in mind of people who were sentenced but didn't? What they typically don't do is be jailed ahead of their conviction, as violent criminal are (often), which I think is rather logical.
> While most convicted sex offenders in Florida are sent to state prison, Epstein was instead housed in a private wing of the Palm Beach County Stockade and, according to the sheriff's office, was, after 3+1⁄2 months, allowed to leave the jail on "work release" for up to 12 hours a day, 6 days a week. This contravened the sheriff's own policies requiring a maximum remaining sentence of 10 months and making sex offenders ineligible for the privilege. He was allowed to come and go outside of specified release hours.[99]
> Epstein's cell door was left unlocked, and he had access to the attorney room where a television was installed for him, before he was moved to the Stockade's previously unstaffed infirmary. He worked at the office of a foundation he had created shortly before reporting to jail; he dissolved it after he had served his time. The Sheriff's Office received $128,000 from Epstein's non-profit to pay for the costs of extra services being provided during his work release. His office was monitored by "permit deputies" whose overtime was paid by Epstein. They were required to wear suits, and checked in "welcomed guests" at the "front desk". Later the Sheriff's Office said these guest logs were destroyed per the department's "records retention" rules (although inexplicably, the Stockade visitor logs were not).[117] Epstein was allowed to use his own driver to drive him between jail and his office and other appointments.
> Epstein's cell door was left unlocked, and he had access to the attorney room where a television was installed for him, before he was moved to the Stockade's previously unstaffed infirmary. He worked at the office of a foundation he had created shortly before reporting to jail; he dissolved it after he had served his time. The Sheriff's Office received $128,000 from Epstein's non-profit to pay for the costs of extra services being provided during his work release. His office was monitored by "permit deputies" whose overtime was paid by Epstein. They were required to wear suits, and checked in "welcomed guests" at the "front desk". Later the Sheriff's Office said these guest logs were destroyed per the department's "records retention" rules (although inexplicably, the Stockade visitor logs were not).[117] Epstein was allowed to use his own driver to drive him between jail and his office and other appointments.
Not a white collar criminal. Agree that this is really fishy. But different problem.
> [This analysis] notes that the criminal justice system is more lenient toward white-collar offenders than nonviolent property offenders and that affluent offenders are less likely to serve prison sentences than poor offenders even when they have committed the same offense.
Even the US DOJ is aware of it.[1]
[1] https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/rich-get...
Even the US DOJ is aware of it.[1]
[1] https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/rich-get...
How much of that effect could be explained by the ability to afford better legal representation rather than direct preferential treatment?
A lot, maybe all. Still, if the rich get better legal outcomes than the poor, that's not justice, whether or not "better lawyers" is the mechanism.
Certainly not arguing that it's fair or just, but it's important to distinguish the mechanisms to have any hope of potentially improving the situation.
Why is this news? There have been so many false promises in tech during the boom of the 2010's and finally consequences are coming to those who were most egregious.
Low interest rates allowed hundreds of startups to make promises of growth and profit, but all they did was burn investor money (and pay themselves). So when one of the biggest overpromise/under-deliver offenders goes to jail, it becomes schadenfreude for all of us.
Low interest rates allowed hundreds of startups to make promises of growth and profit, but all they did was burn investor money (and pay themselves). So when one of the biggest overpromise/under-deliver offenders goes to jail, it becomes schadenfreude for all of us.
It’s not about overpromise/underdeliver, byt about an outright fraud - lying to the investors.
Overpromising is something that investors expect, if not even require - startups are all about doing long shot bets, with 5% chance of doing something brilliant and 95% of failing.
Overpromising is something that investors expect, if not even require - startups are all about doing long shot bets, with 5% chance of doing something brilliant and 95% of failing.
There really are different prison systems. A lot of white collar crime is under Federal jurisdiction. Most violent crimes are state crimes.
> Regarding SBF I’m still appalled how he’s treated with so much leeway, lesser people would be treated quite differently. I still feel like there is really different prison systems for the rich and poor. Maybe I’m wrong.
He's still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
What is the the justification for locking him up unless he's convicted?
Is there a risk he'll start another fraudulent crypto exchange or hedge fund?
He's still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
What is the the justification for locking him up unless he's convicted?
Is there a risk he'll start another fraudulent crypto exchange or hedge fund?
Two kids in the middle of all of this? Yikes.
Even worse, given the vast hubris and fraud, and timing, I can't help but think the birth of kids was strategic. It may be hard for the kids to shake that feeling, too.
Given her age and the possibility (at the time, obviously known now) of a lengthy prison sentence, it was also likely the last chance for her biologically.
I think people should stop assuming malice where other, equally probable, rationales could apply. Let’s give the benefit of the doubt.
I think people should stop assuming malice where other, equally probable, rationales could apply. Let’s give the benefit of the doubt.
Stop assuming malice of someone who willfully misled investors, her own employees, and even consumers who thought they were getting medical analysis? I'm all for second chances, but she expunged all of hers during her time at Theranos.
Malice in a greed-driven business context just might not equate to malice in growing another person inside your body, right? You see how those might be different and one doesn’t necessarily lead to the other?
> Given her age and the possibility (at the time, obviously known now) of a lengthy prison sentence, it was also likely the last chance for her biologically.
To be honest, this comment makes my blood boil. Her "last change biologically"? This is not some career/investment/whatever cold calculation. This is not about her, it's about the kids. Having kids is not a right, it is instead a possibility that comes with serious responsibility.
> I think people should stop assuming malice where other, equally probable, rationales could apply. Let’s give the benefit of the doubt.
I wonder if the same "benefit of the doubt" would be so readily applied to a poor person. I can picture the scenario: some poor woman that is likely going to face a long prison sentence decides to have two kids meanwhile. I can very well imagine what people would say in this case.
To be honest, this comment makes my blood boil. Her "last change biologically"? This is not some career/investment/whatever cold calculation. This is not about her, it's about the kids. Having kids is not a right, it is instead a possibility that comes with serious responsibility.
> I think people should stop assuming malice where other, equally probable, rationales could apply. Let’s give the benefit of the doubt.
I wonder if the same "benefit of the doubt" would be so readily applied to a poor person. I can picture the scenario: some poor woman that is likely going to face a long prison sentence decides to have two kids meanwhile. I can very well imagine what people would say in this case.
I agree with your first paragraph response to me completely, or at least I agree that this type of thinking isn’t acceptable, but would you agree that it is a huge part of the social discourse on women of a certain ages “running out of time” and “hearing their biological clock ticking” etc etc etc? It isn’t inconceivable that she had these thoughts and figured she would have kids while she still could?
Not giving the benefit of the doubt to a person who one said: "They Don’t Put Pretty People Like Me in Jail"
[1] https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/elizabeth-holmes-sentencing...
[1] https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/elizabeth-holmes-sentencing...
She's lying again here... twice!
I would rather not give the benefit of the doubt to someone who has shown no remorse over blatant fraud and corruption, that quite possibly led to someone committing suicide.
What's your take on Bush Jr?
Honestly, who cares?
Why should I care about this convicted criminal over all the others?
I have no sympathy for this white collar criminal, she doesn't affect my life in any way, she's completely irrelevant to my day to day life.
Why should I give the benefit of the doubt to her over say, someone from Enron or a convicted rapist?
Why should I care about this convicted criminal over all the others?
I have no sympathy for this white collar criminal, she doesn't affect my life in any way, she's completely irrelevant to my day to day life.
Why should I give the benefit of the doubt to her over say, someone from Enron or a convicted rapist?
She lost the privilege of not being attributed malice when she pulled a scam of a decade.
She can afford to freeze her eggs. She knew there was a good chance these kids would grow up without her, and she chose to gamble.
A reasonable suggestion given her sociopathic behaviour and I'm guessing she can self-justify the mitigatory timing and the effects on the kids.
All the more tragic for the kids. Hopefully she can reach out and be as decent a mother as she can from prison.
Kids are born into worse situations every minute, they're just not in the news.
Reading Bad Blood, she seems like a sociopath that got those kinds indeed for strategic reasons. Knowing that you go to prison and still getting pregnant is not in the interest of the child.
Even a illiterate/crazy/demented person on the roadside would have told her that she would be 100% convicted.
Having kids well knowing that she would be going to jail is well in the territory of 'Evil'
Having kids well knowing that she would be going to jail is well in the territory of 'Evil'
It's the biological imperative. Framing having kids as evil in any context is disgusting.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35531252 (81 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35528281 (272 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35523513 (55 comments)