[seehafer]

From former AUSA, and current white-collar defense attorney Ken White:

"She faces a max of 65 years (3x20 + 1x5). And it's not at all clear she'll do less than 20."

Apparently the sentences will not necessarily be served concurrently.

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1478170494130003976?s=20

[hn_throwaway_99]

Argh! The linked NPR article on that tweet had me yelling at my phone:

> It is unusual for tech executives to face criminal changes when their startups collapse under the weight of unrealized promises.

That's because it's not illegal to over promise about your future results. It is illegal to lie about simple facts regarding the present state of your business to attract funding.

I'm so sick of so many press outlets framing this as just "fake it til you make it" gone wrong, "a page from the Silicon Valley playbook", or that it's just an over hyped company take to extremes.

No, Theranos was outright, egregious fraud, and most startups that "collapse under the weight of unrealized promises" are not committing fraud.

[Shacklz]

> No, Theranos was outright, egregious fraud, and most startups that "collapse under the weight of unrealized promises" are not committing fraud.

Most startups don't get the traction and publicity that Theranos got, however. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of founders would go to similar lengths given the chance; they just happen to have someone apply some reality check on them before things get out of hand.

[amitport]

Look, there is still a big jump from the usual founder sharing partial vague optimistic statments (e.g., "our algorithm is great"), to the not so common direct lie (e.g., "we tested it with statistical significance, it works, here you can see these results on these real world inputs", while completely faking the results)

[major505]

There`s a difference. I worked in a few startups. We make promisses that we can expect to accomplish in the future, we where clear that whatever we where working was still a prototipe or a promissing idea, but it was not ready.

She was going to great lenghts, saying her machine was already ready to production, and able to do acurate blood tests, when she knew it was impossible, and was using regular blood tests to fake results.

[edanm]

I would be fairly surprised. If only because, again, this is fraud and lands you in jail.

[mattzito]

It happens more than you think, in many cases it’s easier to just sweep under the rug and move on. Few VCs want to admit they were swindled, and even fewer want the industry perception that they get founders investigated for fraud when things go sideways.

Theranos was unique in both the scale of the fraud and how non-investors were potentially harmed. Most of these are just founders who knowingly or unknowingly get in over their head and then basically walk away after having lied about the state of things.

I’ve heard a bunch of stories from VC friends, but the one I was the most involved with directly was probably 10 years ago. My mom mentioned to me that she had been chatting with some senior local government official who mentioned they had a startup datacenter provider taking over a nearby abandoned office complex and converting it to a green datacenter, bringing hundreds of jobs to the area - had I heard of them?

I had not, and after some digging determined that the company had claimed to have a bunch of unique technology, and leveraged that to get preferential terms from the local government - free rent, no property or payroll taxes, and other cash- and non-cash concessions. They had also raised millions from private investors by saying they had active datacenters with customers and they needed money to expand.

Except none of it was true. They had no customers, no datacenters, no employees other than the three founders and one of their daughters. They had made commitments in three different locations over the past three years to build a datacenter while simultaneously raising money by saying they ALREADY had active datacenters and customers.

I shared this with my mom, who shared it with local government, who hand waved it away as nonsense. But nothing ever happened at any of these sites, and after they ran through the money they filed for bankruptcy with revenue of $0 and assets of ~$12k. Their biggest investor took control of their land lease from the local government. Some investors complained online about being lied to, and the local government quietly swept it under the rug. I spoke with a local business reporter who basically shrugged and said, “yup, you’re right, but no one wants to talk about it”.

[m3047]

> Few VCs [...] want the industry perception that they get founders investigated for fraud when things go sideways.

That would be refreshing! I might pitch to them.

[vxNsr]

That fruit juicer company over promised and under delivered, wasn't fraud tho.

[hn_throwaway_99]

Actually, Juicero over promised AND over delivered, just in the wrong way.

I saw tons of teardowns of their machine saying how over-engineered it was for something that squeezes a bag of precut fruits and veggies.

[orangepanda]

Under-engineered, if anything. If they had spent more time on development, a simpler machine could have been built. "Insert your favourite bridge building quote"

[shard]

> a simpler machine could have been built

That's the definition of over-engineering: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overengineering

[camillomiller]

Lying about the level of development of your social app is also quite different than this

[whoisstan]

Wasn't her and the companies case that they knew what they wanted to achieve, wearing the bandaid that communicates with the phone to the server was impossible and that its various simpler versions of devices did produce results that did knowingly mislead people about their health. That's is potentially life threatening and different from an i.e. chat AI company that blatantly lies, this may lead to some peoples misery as well, but Theranos had way less network hops leading to health threatening outcomes.

[ekanes]

Absolutely. A bit more fair might be that startups often "collapse under the weight of unrealized DREAMS" :)

[luckydata]

Agreed, but there's a non zero number of startups I had first hand experience with that I would define fraudulent without hesitation. They just didn't become as big or raised enough money to matter.

[tptacek]

Yeah, that's a surprising thing for him to say, since he's generally one of the loudest voices against this "add up the sentences" stuff. The grouping rules are in the sentencing guidelines too! Go look!

[hn_throwaway_99]

He was just responding to this paragraph in the NPR article:

> Holmes' sentencing date has not yet been set. But she faces the maximum penalty of 20 years behind bars, though legal experts say she will likely face a lesser punishment.

That is, he wasn't arguing that she will serve the max of 65, just that the max is much higher than what NPR reported.

[dragonwriter]

It's not surprising, because there's a very good argument that the guideline range for what she has been convicted of (and taking into account her conduct at trial, which is relevant) is life, with the actual sentence capped at the statutory maximum of the offenses stacked consecutively rather than concurrently.

Now, it's possible that the court wouldn't agree with that analysis and find slightly fewer points, or that it would agree but would make a downward departure, but...

[throwawaylinux]

Why does that make it surprising?

[tptacek]

For one thing, because he's the author of this pretty famous post:

https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...

For another, because the guidelines are pretty specific in this case --- that 2B1.1 crimes are charged according to --- well, here's the wording from the guidelines: "the applicable base offense level is determined by the count of conviction that provides the highest statutory maximum term of imprisonment.". So "3x20" seems off the table.

[throwawaylinux]

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1478172078092128256

"They run concurrently except to the extent necessary to serve the full sentence the judge selects."

When he said it's not clear she'll do less than 20, I don't think he meant she might get more than 20, just that she might get 20.

[tptacek]

The thing here is, you get up to around 20 years just with a single wire fraud count, because the amounts involved here are so high. We're at $143MM in losses on the three wire fraud charges together (2B1.1 states they're to be summed up), which gets you a 26(!)-level enhancement from the base level of 7. That's 12 years (at the bottom of the range), and every other enhancement you take after level 33 is another ~4 years; there are 3-4 enhancements (like "sophisticated means") that seem likely to apply.

On the flip side, given the huge sums involved, it's not easy to make the numbers make sense served consecutively.

Here's an article about grouping:

https://www.josephabramslaw.com/understanding-grouping-rules...

[throwawaylinux]

Yes there's lots of very high and very low guesses as to what she might get going around. I'm just commenting here specifically on this twitter guy's opinion.

[dragonwriter]

> "They run concurrently except to the extent necessary to serve the full sentence the judge selects."

Note that that is a big except, when you have lots of points, which big $ frauds get you quickly.

[bambax]

I hate Holmes as much as anyone [0], but life in prison (65 years when you're 37 = out when you're 102) sounds unreasonably harsh.

She's not convicted of actually, physically harming anyone, esp. patients (which doesn't mean she didn't -- but she wasn't found guilty of that); she's convicted of lying to investors.

That's obviously bad, and should carry some form of punishment. Maybe 5 years? But life?? That's insane.

[0] I read John Carreyrou's book when it came out.

[patrec]

Personally, I find it desirable that people who commit massive fraud in the health care sector get punished severely (based on whatever charges they are actually convicted of), because chances are someone will actually be physically harmed even if that is hard to prove to a standard necessary for conviction (even if no actual harmful treatment resulted, which seems likely in this case, the misallocation of resources to the fraud means someone will likely be deprived of a treatment they would otherwise have received). So IMO 5 years would be insane -- Madoff got done for 10 years, and his fraud was much more benign (I suspect a very significant percentage of his victims knew the returns were to good to be true and that someone was being defrauded; they just didn't realize it was them).

[atlantic]

Your argument is applicable to all white-collar crime. And it's emotionally-based, because she looks like one of us, not like a stereotypical thug. But in fact, she lied to take money from investors - theft on a grand scale - even if she wasn't wielding a sawn-off shotgun and wearing a ski mask. Edit: aside from that, I agree the potential sentence is very long, but that is characteristic of the US justice system, right across the board. In my country, the maximum sentence is 25 years, regardless of the crime.

[mschuster91]

On the other side, one might make the argument that someone with millions of dollars to spare on early-stage investments should also be able to do their own due diligence on investments - otherwise, why would the status "accredited investor" be required? And, implicitly, that people like Holmes and Madoff who decide to exploit greed and unprofessionalism serve a vital purpose in a free market by acting as predators removing weak elements from the market.

Experts have warned from the beginning that Theranos made unrealistic to impossible announcements. Anyone investing at that scale without consulting experts IMO does not deserve protection from the law.

If Theranos is one thing, it is a real life example of why group dynamics and investing don't mix, and why the best thing to come out of r/wallstreetbets is the saying "do your own DD".

[bumby]

I think that argument gets lost when the company actively lies. In Theranos’ case, they forged letters by Pfizer claiming the system was validated. If a company is forging, say accounting books, it’s hard to claim due diligence would have prevented being swindled.

[mschuster91]

> In Theranos’ case, they forged letters by Pfizer claiming the system was validated.

Wirecard did the same with accounting statements from the Philippines, and EY accepted them without verifying that the statements are correct at the bank offices, they didn't even cross check if the billions of dollars could even be on the books of the Philippine banking system, and now EY is in hot waters.

If I were an investor and were presented with claims of validation of a technology that is hotly contested, the very first thing I'd do is call up or otherwise contact the issuer and verify the authenticity of that claim. It's like ten minutes to find out the contact information of Pfizer's Investor Relations team and compose a letter - investors who are unwilling to commit at least this little bit of verification deserve to be relieved of their money and office.

[bumby]

EY = Earnst & Young?

You bring up good points (although I think I disagree with your conclusion that people ‘deserve’ to be defrauded). There seems to be active collusion at times between oversight and the companies being audited. This isn’t the first time EY has been accused of this and we see it with credit ratings agencies too.

I think I come to a different conclusion because we all outsource our quality assurance on a daily basis. Did you review the airworthiness certificate of the last plane you flew on? If not, do you “deserve” to crash because you outsourced to the FAA without verifying it yourself?

I’d say the blame should fall to the third party auditors who failed the system, not necessarily to those who trusted them.

[metabagel]

For the most part, it wasn’t really possible to perform due diligence in this case, because Theranos refused to submit to an audit, and otherwise lied and actively prevented investors from getting the true story. For that reason, some potential investors walked away.

[datavirtue]

She straight up said she was backed by partnerships with big pharma and that the device was working. I would have invested in a heart beat given the claimm. Lying at that level is insane. She need removed from the presence of law abiding citizens as long as possible.

[moron4hire]

I've been involved in investment due diligence investigations. You don't just take people's word for that sort of stuff. You literally pry through everything and confirm it for sure.

[kingkawn]

Lol stereotypical thug cmon man

[neuronic]

Not to defend her actions, but why do Americans particularly insist on severe, inhumane, and disproportional punishment? It would be completely unthinkable for her to get anything >15 years in Germany, likely much much less than that (let'ss ee how Wirecard goes). She didn't murder or harm anyone. She committed fraud.

As if sending her to prison for 5-10 years wouldn't be enough? Who will give her money or believe anything she does afterwards? She's done for no matter what. 65+ years is just to be cruel and enjoyment of the cruelty.

Even if it is the health sector where harm can easily be done, punishments shouldn't be based on hypotheticals.

[metabagel]

Personally, I think she should get 12 years. That’s a long time.

I’m an American. As a society, we believe in the deterrent value of punishment (which is proven not to work). We also see prison as a place to put dangerous people in order to protect society. We see only the risk of letting dangerous people out of prison, not any potential benefit. If we have to lock up 1 innocent person to be sure that 9 dangerous people gets locked up, those numbers work for us. It’s a kind of tunnel vision focused on the worst offenders and ignoring the many non-violent or rehabilitated offenders.

So, it’s just this very one-sided view, very risk averse and without much empathy or grace toward the offender.

[metabagel]

Also, I think we tend to minimize how hard it is to serve time in a cage. And when people come out of prison and commit further crimes, we assume they didn’t spend enough time behind bars. It’s the one and only solution to the problem. If it’s not working, we apparently just need more of it.

[patrec]

> As a society, we believe in the deterrent value of punishment (which is proven not to work).

Do you genuinely believe that high-IQ white collar criminals are exactly the type of person unable to do even the most basic risk-reward analysis?

[catillac]

“She didn't murder or harm anyone. She committed fraud.”

Fraud is harm.

[kesselvon]

I think what they're saying is fraud isn't murder. The median murder sentence in the US is like 15 years.

[JoeAltmaier]

Misdiagnosing people is not harmless. Compare it to selling snake-oil cures, that prevent folks from getting actual medical help. It could kill people. Not harmless, done at a huge scale, and probably killed people or shortened their lives.

[crispyambulance]

> why do Americans particularly insist on severe, inhumane, and disproportional punishment?

Part of the reason is because punishment is so wildly variable and also sentences are almost always shortened drastically. It never looks like justice prevails. A "20 year sentence" is never actually "20 years", it could easily end up being a few years + probation, or even less.

[kingkawn]

Not sure why you replied to me, I was objecting to the parent comment’s casual endorsement of a racist archetype.

Also, america sure as shit better not go light on a rich lady who sold profit dreams to old men while giving outrageous sentences to poor people everyday. You want to talk about criminal Justice reform she is definitely last on the list of people who deserve leniency.

[vasilipupkin]

looks like one of us? wut?

[Hnrobert42]

5 years?! People can get that much for stealing a car or jewelry. She stole tens of millions! Not only that, she did it through fraud. It’s not like you can just build a higher fence. For the system to work, it must be free of fraud.

[bambax]

Fraud is different from theft. Fraud is manipulating consent. Theft is taking by force what isn't yours. I don't know why everyone seems to be conflating the two everywhere in this thread.

[marcusverus]

In this case, fraud is far worse than theft. She defrauded investors of hundreds of millions of dollars and spent them on a what was essentially a vanity project. She destroyed hundreds of millions of dollars of private property.

Destroying 100 million is best compared to something like a "killdozer"[0] rampage. Holmes' crime was the destructive equivalent of leveling ~300 homes.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer#The_'Killdozer...

[spookthesunset]

Speaking of killdozer, there is an excellent podcast on this guy: https://swindledpodcast.com/podcasts/season-5/72-the-killdoz...

It was very lucky nobody was seriously injured by that thing.

[Hnrobert42]

I did not conflate them. I directly compared them.

In both theft and fraud, the victim is deprived of of something. That’s why people consider them similar crimes.

[bambax]

The question is not just the state of the victim, it is (mainly) the intent of the perpetrator and the means used. That's why you don't get the same sentence if you harm somebody by accident or if you meant to do it.

[blitzar]

Accidental death and murder both result in someone dead. They are not similar crimes.

[ryathal]

Accidental fraud generally isn't even a crime though...

[dahfizz]

They are not the _same_, but they are extremely similar. Do you think first and second degree murder charges are "similar"?

[369548684892826]

Feel pretty similar from the victim’s point of view.

[Jimmc414]

How would you exclude rear ending a car at a red light from that set?

[ryathal]

Intent. Both fraud and theft require intent, rear ending a car can happen regardless of intent, and would be a much more severe charge if there was intent.

[bufferoverflow]

No, you're confusing robbery and theft. Robbery is taking stuff by force.

[parineum]

> Grand Theft

> Grand theft includes theft of property with a value of more than $950 or theft of a firearm (any value). The penalty for stealing a firearm is a felony, punishable by a state prison term of 16 months, two years, or three years. In all other cases, grand theft is a wobbler and can be charged as a misdemeanor or felony. A misdemeanor sentence results in up to one year in jail and a felony sentence results in prison time of 16 months, two years, or three years. (Cal. Penal Code §§ 487, 490.2 (2020).)

You actually can't get that much time for stealing a car or jewelry. What gives a criminal that much time is that "theft" is often actually "robbery", which involves the use of coercive violence. Violence is generally punished much more harshly.

> California Penal Code 211 PC defines the crime of robbery as “the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.” Robbery is a felony punishable by up to 9 years in state prison.

> First-degree robbery includes robbery of

> any driver or passenger on a bus, taxi, streetcar, subway, cable car, etc., any person in an inhabited structure, or any person who has just used an ATM and is still in the vicinity of the ATM.4

> First-degree robbery leads to a California state prison sentence of between three (3) and nine (9) years.5

[Hnrobert42]

While you may be correct, I am not sure your pedantry affects my point.

[parineum]

It's not pedantry. Those people who got "much more time" aren't there for taking money, they're there for pointing guns and knives at people. Threatening to take someone's life is much worse than actually taking some money.

[klik99]

Just on your last sentence: The ideal amount of fraud is not zero, the cost of checking everything is too high. I recommend the book “lying for money” which breaks down what fraud is and what that tells us about the overall system

[sgt101]

I think that there are two components in your argument, the personal harm element and social policing. The question for me is what responsibility and therefore forefit there should be on an individual for the social element. Interestingly it seems to me that the more libertarian folks are the harsher their view of punitive measures for social enforcement seems.

[whywhywhywhy]

Sometimes it's not all just about the monetary amount. Someone choosing to use the threat of violence or death on a single individual one time to even take as little as $20 doesn't belong in a society.

Even if you're lying to trick some companies and investors to give you millions you're still not as evil or dangerous to society as the person who chooses to terrorize individuals for their gain. The actions are what matters.

[richthegeek]

  “Do you understand what I'm saying?" shouted Moist. "You can't just go around killing people!"

  "Why Not? You Do." The golem lowered his arm.

  "What?" snapped Moist. "I do not! Who told you that?"

  "I Worked It Out. You Have Killed Two Point Three Three Eight People," said the golem calmly.

  "I have never laid a finger on anyone in my life, Mr Pump. I may be–– all the things you know I am, but I am not a killer! I have never so much as drawn a sword!"

  "No, You Have Not. But You Have Stolen, Embezzled, Defrauded And Swindled Without Discrimination, Mr Lipvig. You Have Ruined Businesses And Destroyed Jobs. When Banks Fail, It Is Seldom Bankers Who Starve. Your Actions Have Taken Money From Those Who Had Little Enough To Begin With. In A Myriad Small Ways You Have Hastened The Deaths Of Many. You Do Not Know Them. You Did Not See Them Bleed. But You Snatched Bread From Their Mouths And Tore Clothes From Their Backs. For Sport, Mr Lipvig. For Sport. For The Joy Of The Game.”

- Going Postal, Terry Prachett

Fraud is not a zero-victim crime and less than petty theft is. Just because the investors can 'afford' it, their losses are passed on to society eventually.

[neuronic]

She's ruined anyway, doesn't mean she should get life in prison but I know Americans tend to thrive on cruelty.

[CRConrad]

The reverse, that you are in effect advocating, amounts to letting the big fish get away with fleecing LOTS of people while coming down much harder on the small fry that robs one person at a time.

Also a very American way of thinking AFAICS.

[uncomputation]

Right, and it wasn’t cruel at all for her to put out medical devices she knew could and did produce false results for patients - in one case a false positive for HIV - solely for her own gain?

[ljm]

I think this is an interesting perspective because there have to be some unconscious biases at play to see these things so differently, even down to one person 'tricking some investors' and the other 'terrorizing individuals for their gain'. Furthermore, one of these people is 'more evil' and 'more dangerous'. In my own mind there's an element of classism involved because of how we see these two kinds of people so differently, and how we imagine them to live their lives.

In that sense, this CEO could be like the Sackler family - responsible for so much suffering across American society for the past decade or so, but because the scale is so large they've effectively abstracted themselves away from the evil and terror they are responsible for. The implication being that the opioid addict gets the full judgment of the law and society for terrorizing individuals to feed their addition, but the people who made the addiction possible get away with being tricksters. The only reason Elizabeth Holmes doesn't approach that level is because she and her startup got caught before they could release their fake products at scale, before the more serious consequences would begin.

If you ask me, I'd prefer to see both being held appropriately accountable, preferably in a way that encourages rehabilitation and not retribution or cruelty.

[CRConrad]

> but because the scale is so large

Above all, I think, because it's so diluted across a lot of people. To me, all these fraud-on-a-grand-scale-apologists are as naïve as Moist von Lipwig in the Pratchett quote in a sibling comment.

Personally, I'm with the gholem.

[jklinger410]

People are just making stuff up in this thread lmao

[Hendrikto]

> She's not convicted of actually, physically harming anyone

She should be though. People had unnecessary and invasive medical treatment as a direct result pf her fraud.

[HlessClaudesman]

Or they didn't receive timely treatment because of her fraud.

The actus reus is her fraud, the original criminal act, and having decided to do crimes she is also responsible for any harm caused.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus

In the US is it up to the harmed individuals or their surviving relatives to peruse this?

[kube-system]

The jury acquitted her of 4 counts regarding defrauding patients. She may have caused them civil harm, but that’s a different case than what was being considered here.

[morelisp]

As long as we send people to prison for 65 years, it should be people who did the kind of things she did.

[Boritanian]

She effectively stole millions. That's multiple lifetimes worth of work for a lot of people.

If you assume average salary of 100k per year per person with 1/4th of time work per year. that's effectively 400k per year per person. He stole a hundred million which would be 250 years.

[dagw]

She effectively stole millions.

From people who could easily afford to lose it and who should have known better. None of the people she defrauded have a materially worse quality of life than they did before.

Her biggest crime was making rich people look stupid, and they REALLY don't like that.

[dayvid]

In the book Bad Blood, people wanted to come out to expose Theranos and she had the most expensive law firm in CA basically threaden to sue people into oblivion. The person who spoke to the WSJ journalist who broke the story and put his name on the record did so because his dad mortgaged their house to deal with legal implications. Before that there were patients, doctors, employees etc. bullied by the company into submission.

[theglocksaint]

Really? What about the literal stalking by her legal team? Two people directly involved in the company were suicidal due to the environment she created, one of whom did end up committing suicide.

[dagw]

Apparently not a serious crime it would seem, since no prosecutor seems to care. It is very clear that in the current court system defrauding rich people is a much worse crime that 'accidentally' killing a few poor people. Had she gotten drunk and killed someone with her car, she would be looking at a much lighter sentence.

[jklinger410]

This is the inverse of implying the people Kyle Rittenhouse deserved to die because of their criminal history.

It does not matter at all that they could afford to lose it. Her biggest crime was the one she just got convicted of, being a fraud and lying for profit.

One side of this conversation is unnecessarily harsh, I get that, but the other side of this conversation is playing mental gymnastics to try and downplay what she did. Both are wrong.

[selfhoster11]

> From people who could easily afford to lose it and who should have known better.

Who in turn gained their money from trickle-up economics targeting the working and middle classes, in all likelihood.

[spaniard89277]

Money that could have gone elsewhere where there wasn't fraud.

I don't get this apologetic comment.

[dagw]

I don't get this apologetic comment.

The crime she was convicted of isn't a crime you should spend effectively the rest of your life in jail for. It's as simple as that.

[CRConrad]

> The crime she was convicted of isn't a crime you should spend effectively the rest of your life in jail for. It's as simple as that.

Not if you're a young(-ish) and relatively good-looking female billionaire CEO, at least.

Apparently, judging from the fact that I haven't seen all you people spouting this line on the barricades fighting for more lenient sentences for ordinary lowlife ugly middle-aged male fraudsters.

That's how simple it is.

[flexie]

If it matters how rich the investors she defrauded actually are, perhaps she should get just a few months in jail:

"Notably, Theranos’ investors weren’t the usual-suspect venture capital firms. Rather, her funding came from individuals like former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and the Walton family, among other wealthy elites. Some evidence showed that these investors were willing to give Theranos money even when Holmes evaded their more probing questions."

https://techcrunch.com/2022/01/03/elizabeth-holmes-verdict-g...

[rswail]

That's why she's being prosecuted so heavily, she screwed with the wrong people.

[JshWright]

> her funding came from individuals like former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and the Walton family, among other wealthy elites.

And there we have the crux of why she was prosecuted...

You're much better off screwing average people, then it's just "capitalism".

[zzbzq]

The way I see the world today has convinced me Dante's Inferno had it right: treachery > fraud > violence

[TheRealDunkirk]

You don't understand. In our system of capitalism, fleecing investors under false pretenses is the gravest of sins. She must be punished accordingly, in order to make a legal statement to other potential capital thieves.

[wayoutthere]

And to note, these are federal charges so there’s no parole. When you get 20 years in federal time, you may get some time off for good behavior but you’re going to serve most of your sentence.

[CRConrad]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29795059

[bufferoverflow]

My prediction: sentenced to 20, out in 10.

[CRConrad]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29793966