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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech

Theranos Fraudster Elizabeth Holmes Has Prison Sentence Reduced Again (theguardian.com) 72

Posted by BeauHD from the good-conduct dept.
For the second time, the disgraced former CEO of Theranos has had her federal prison sentence shortened. In July, it was reduced by two years. Now, 40-year-old Holmes is scheduled for release on August 16, 2032 instead of December 29, 2032 -- a reduction of more than four months. The Guardian reports: People incarcerated in the U.S. can have their sentences shortened for good conduct and for completing rehabilitation programs, such as a substance abuse program. The latest reduction of Holmes's sentence still meets federal sentencing guidelines. Those guidelines mandate that people convicted of federal offenses must serve at least 85% of their sentence, regardless of reductions for good behavior.

In 2022, Holmes was sentenced to 11 years and three months in prison after being convicted on four counts of defrauding investors. She was also ordered to pay $452m in restitution to those she defrauded, but a judge delayed those payments due to Holmes's "limited financial resources." Holmes's lawyers have already begun attempts to get her conviction overturned. Oral arguments for her appeal are set to begin on June 11 in a federal appeals court in San Francisco, California, NBC News reported.

Theranos Fraudster Elizabeth Holmes Has Prison Sentence Reduced Again More | Reply

Theranos Fraudster Elizabeth Holmes Has Prison Sentence Reduced Again

Comments Filter:

  • Sociopath manipulates justice system (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @06:51PM (#64455262)

    Are we surprised? Honestly, my surprise stems from her apparent ability to afford the lawyers for this, but I guess it helps when you don't actually have to pay the fine.

  • What's Her Addiction (Score:4, Funny)

    by Luthair ( 847766 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @06:57PM (#64455284)
    Money? Dear Warden, during my incarceration I have not profited from defrauding investors.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Shakrai ( 717556 )

      Substances most people do not regard as addictive (weed) or inherently dangerous (alcohol) are viewed as both by the Federal and most State criminal justice systems.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by HiThere ( 15173 )

        FWIW, I have known people addicted to weed. It's unusual, but it does happen. (But it's much more common to be addicted to sugar or excessive salt.)

      • Substances most people do not regard as addictive (weed) or inherently dangerous (alcohol) are viewed as both by the Federal and most State criminal justice systems.

        If alcohol isn’t “inherently” dangerous, then perhaps you can explain an auto insurers mentality towards risk when punishing a one-time DUI offender that caused no harm or death who will pay for that crime many many years beyond any criminal punishment with horrific insurance rates.

        A full blown alcoholic busted for one DUI, could got through all 12 steps, become an AA chapter president and local pastor, and insurance would still treat them as inherently high risk. Why, if alcohol isn

        • Re:What's Her Addiction (Score:4, Informative)

          by Shakrai ( 717556 ) on Wednesday May 08, 2024 @01:45PM (#64457361) Journal

          You might note that I said most people don't regard it as inherently dangerous. I chose brevity rather than a wall of text about alcohol abuse that manifests in a minority of users.

          Regarding insurance companies, I think you already know the answer: That person has demonstrated absolutely horrible judgment and the statistics on recidivism for DWI aren't flattering. They'll probably cancel you outright, if allowed under state law, but if they keep you they will surcharge you for the longest period of time allowed under state law. Note that they don't ask if you drink and surcharge you if you answer in the affirmative. They surcharge people that have demonstrated an inability to drink within the confines of the law and common sense.

          Long ago in a galaxy far away I worked in the insurance business. Would it surprise you to know there's one thing you can do that will frighten an insurance company more than a DWI? Fall asleep behind the wheel. You were probably just fatigued but for all they know there's an underlying medical condition that will manifest again and again. They will run for the hills if allowed by state law/regulation. I saw more cancellations/non-renewals for this than for DWI.

          Either scenario poses extreme risk for a policy limit claim, e.g., you seriously injure or kill someone. That can happen with mundane violations (speeding, running a stop sign, etc.) too but it's a lot less likely. They don't care about property damage, short of totaling someone's Bentley there's a limit on property claims. Most are rounding errors for a large insurance company. Personal injury on the other hand, that can easily hit seven digits, occasionally eight. You probably don't have that much coverage but most people carry six digits worth. $300,000 was the average when I was in the business. That's real money by anyone's metric.

          • You might note that I said most people don't regard it as inherently dangerous. I chose brevity rather than a wall of text about alcohol abuse that manifests in a minority of users.

            Regarding insurance companies, I think you already know the answer: That person has demonstrated absolutely horrible judgment and the statistics on recidivism for DWI aren't flattering. They'll probably cancel you outright, if allowed under state law, but if they keep you they will surcharge you for the longest period of time allowed under state law.

            As many a hurricane victim can attest, insurance will also cancel you for having the nerve to put your house in the path of nature. The DWI person demonstrated horrible judgement. I agree. So lock them up for a decade. Take away their driving rights for life, right? I mean why are we even allowing law enforcement to be so “weak” here? Why don’t they punish for FAR longer like insurance does? Under state law, they gave you your driving rights back. The State actually forgave the one

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by Shakrai ( 717556 )

              Insurance is priced on risk, if you live in hurricane alley, you're going to pay more, ditto if you have a bad driving record. Would you find it fairer if they weren't allowed to surcharge for DWIs and we all got to pay higher rates?

              There's a lot the insurance industry does that I think is BS but this is not one of those things. You've picked a terribly lonely hill to die on if you seriously mean to stick up for all the poor victims of driving under the influence who now have to pay higher insurance ra

      • Alcohol is inherently dangerous in at least two ways. One, it's toxic. Two, it reduces inhibitions in exactly the way that the other substance you mentioned (weed) doesn't. That's why it raises accident risk but weed doesn't - people on weed are able to recognize and account for impairment by driving slower and maintaining longer following distances.

  • Kind of overblown (Score:3, Insightful)

    by peterww ( 6558522 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @06:58PM (#64455292)

    Some CEOs have literally worked through shadow companies to disrupt state and federal elections, and their investigations were cancelled, even after emails from them that are basically a smoking gun are released. I don't feel bad for Holmes, but I do think she's getting it way harder than other people who had nothing happen to them. Nobody went to jail for the global financial meltdown, but we're quibbling over a few months' sentence for a single snake-oil saleswoman?

    • Have you heard about the goat sent into the wilderness after the Jewish chief priest had symbolically laid the sins of the people upon it (Lev. 16)?

    • Based on the title, I thought it was going to be cutting the sentence in half or more.

      And I'm pretty sure that one or two CEOs did dirtier things in and around the 2008 recession and none of them ever saw jail time...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by znrt ( 2424692 )

      Nobody went to jail for the global financial meltdown, but we're quibbling over a few months' sentence for a single snake-oil saleswoman?

      welcome to slashdot. if it aint baity it aint clicky! we're bored here!

      tbf, the article clearly states that she's just receiving regular benefits, and pinky promises that she'll still do over 9 years. then again a good question to ask is if everyone entangled in the u.s. prison industrial megacomplex for whatever reason is having the same opportunities and scrutiny.

      • Countless tens of thousands of convicted felons in the U.S. were let out of jail because of "Covid" - remember? And convicts only serving a fraction of their sentence because of either overcrowding or good behavior is something that has been going on for decades, there's nothing in this article to make one think her 4 month sentence reduction is anything out of the ordinary... the only reason we have this story here onnslashdot is because some people still have alerts set to catch anything new relating to t

    • we're quibbling over a few months' sentence for a single snake-oil saleswoman?

      Well, not exactly, we're upset about the reduced sentence for a scumbag piece of $#it who put people's lives at risk with fake medical results for blood tests. People were diagnosed with diseases they didn't have or healthy lives when they actually had diseases. People stopped taking necessary medications because they thought they were healthy. One guy went on record for discontinuing use of blood thinning medication based on flawed test results .

  • Financial Priorities (Score:3)

    by Roger W Moore ( 538166 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @06:59PM (#64455294) Journal

    She was also ordered to pay $452m in restitution to those she defrauded, but a judge delayed those payments due to Holmes's "limited financial resources." Holmes's lawyers....

    Clearly her financial resources were not so limited that she could not afford lawyers. Perhaps repaying those she defrauded should have a higher priority than finding money to pay lawyers for an appeal?

    • What if those investors are so used to practicing fraud in their own lives that they had insured their investments and are not really suffering in any legitimate sense of the word?

      • I would argue that it does not matter: if you profited form a crime then repaying those you defrauded should always take priority over paying your won legal costs for an appeal whether those you defrauded be billionaires or improverished. Justice is supposed to be blind.

        • Justice may be blind, but she sure as fuck has her other senses. Like the bribe, ahem I mean lawyer fees to cover the judges golf game green fees, rich fucks getting off with slaps on the wrist for stuff that any of those POOR people would get life sentences for.

          She feels that money as soon as it slaps into her palm. Probably even smells the left over cocaine on the bills too!

        • Until she exhausts her appeals, her conviction won't stand. You can't ask someone to pay a $450M fine before they can appeal their conviction - oh wait, I guess you can... [bloomberg.com]

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Bert64 ( 520050 )

            So they spend all their ill gotten money on lawyer fees, and then can't pay the fine.
            It seems the entire system is designed to enrich lawyers at the expense of everyone else.

          • Until she exhausts her appeals, her conviction won't stand. You can't ask someone to pay a $450M fine before they can appeal their conviction

            What you can do is require them to put the money into court-controlled escrow though and they can fund any appeals from what they have left. Allowing them to spend all their money on lawyers in a desperate attempt to reverse the verdict is unfair. A guilty verdict ought to mean something otherwise why bother at all?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

            Not that I don't agree with you in principle that the process itself is the punishment in the case of Darth Cheeto, but there is an important difference here, and it's highlighted by your use of the word "conviction." Darth Cheeto was not "convicted" of anything in that case, it was a civil judgement and the procedures and protections are quite different in those. The law doesn't care that the plaintiff in that case was the state rather than another private party, both plaintiff and defendant are treated a

      • How do you insure an investment in a start-up?

        You're literally just making shit up to try and minimize the impact of her horrible, horrible, defrauding of not only investors, but PATIENTS who got mis-diagnosed or incorrect test results.

        • What if you hedged your bets and came out ahead because you wrote off the loss and reduced your taxable income from other sources?

          What if this is silly and just another man-made problem anyway because the Fed could easily make all the investors whole like it did with Silicon Valley Bank, whenever it feels like it?

    • Perhaps her husband is paying her legal fees? He was not involved in the fraud so his assets and income are not affected.

    • Clearly her financial resources were not so limited that she could not afford lawyers.

      Lawyers were not involved in this sentence reduction. This is normal prison operational stuff. The only reason it's in the news is because she's famous.

      • I make no claims about what her lawyers are doing only that if she can afford to pay lawyers she can clearly afford to pay at least some restitution to those she was found guilty of defrauding.

  • Trump was right (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    There is a two tier justice system. How else can you get 10 strikes for contempt of court or only face jail time when you defraud rich people?

  • The media was greatly missing putting Holmes mug up. It really has been to long. Like a junkie craving that next hit, they were considering fluff articles like "To pass the time, Holmes takes up Crocheting" and "Holmes makes formal complaint of crappy prison cable TV service" and "Holmes sees prison doctor for hang nail". But then some real honest-to-god news comes along! Sure, it would have been nice if the time was longer, say a 6 month reduction, or heavens, 1 year and we could move the story to the f
  • We incarcerate people for too long. Now do the other nonviolent inmates.

    • Re:good - some people (Score:4, Insightful)

      by schwit1 ( 797399 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @08:47PM (#64455470)

      Her blood analyzer scam may have cost people their lives.
      https://www.wsj.com/articles/t... [wsj.com]

      • Nobody's been able to prove that definitively -- if they have .. provide a non-media, peer-reviewed, reference please. Bad test results can happen from any diagnostics company. You have to prove that Theranos rate was worse and compare death rates. As I understand it her biggest fraud was she told investors the product works, while it was still in development and they were using other companies equipment for the tests. That's not ultra-different than Tesla selling "Full Self Driving" cars under the guise th

      • Her blood analyzer scam may have cost people their lives. https://www.wsj.com/articles/t... [wsj.com]

        If we’re still describing the harm as “may have”, no wonder her sentence is basically a joke.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )

      I basically agree that we incarcerate people too long, but I also think we allow them too much communication with outside entities. I think the confinement should be solitary that's really solitary. No talking with anybody, including the jailers. No view of anybody, even the jailers. A nice, comfortable, cell suitable for a monk on retreat. Include an exercise machine. No phone. No video. No speakers. No monitoring. Think of it as a modern day equivalent to marooning alone on a desert island. And

      • And violate the 8th amendment to the US constitution in my view

      • Re: good (Score:2)

        by kenh ( 9056 )

        I think the confinement should be solitary that's really solitary. No talking with anybody, including the jailers. No view of anybody, even the jailers. A nice, comfortable, cell suitable for a monk on retreat. Include an exercise machine. No phone. No video. No speakers. No monitoring.

        Are you psychotic?

        The hope is that prison rehabilitates the criminal, not torture them - if you treated a person like that for several years, they'd come out of and inflict their mental issues on everyone they come into contact with, and would become ruthless if ever faced with the threat of being sent back to such a prison.

        You simply can't treat another human like that, FFS!

        • The hope is that prison rehabilitates the criminal, not torture them

          Maybe in other countries with civilized legal systems, but not in this country. In the US, we have two main priorities: cruelty, particularly for people of color, or poor people; or pimping out convicts for cheap labor, also known colloquially as "slave labor." Rehabilitation doesn't factor into our penal system; unless you consider lip service.

    • Re: good (Score:2)

      by kenh ( 9056 )

      Sentence reductions happen all the time, this is nothing no or even unusual.

    • We incarcerate people for too long. Now do the other nonviolent inmates.

      I'm sorry; did you think there was some sort of principal behind all that?

      That movement is just for keeping a lock on a key wedge political constituency. Once that Holmes is not a member of.

      No, expect the backers of that movement to be outraged that Holmes got any leniency. (Looks around at slashdot comments, sees confirmation of this.)

  • Anger fueling clickbait article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @07:56PM (#64455424)
    This is a run of the mill sentence reduction for good behavior. It was fully expected. She'd have gotten the same treatment no matter what, it's completely normal.

    This is the "Velma Season 2" of clickbait. Something to get your blood boiling so you're get angry and click and comment and engage with all these "fun" advertisements!

    Learn to spot these things. Find some good articles and/or videos on media literacy if you haven't already. You're being made into a fool.

    • Something to get your blood boiling so you're get angry and click and comment and engage with all these "fun" advertisements!

      Ads? I do not see any ads on Slashdot. I don't block them, I just don't run javascript. Noscript+Firefox.

  • Low quality reporting (Score:4, Informative)

    by Aighearach ( 97333 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @10:14PM (#64455594)

    Rounding, and then rounding again!

    Her sentence was previously reduced not by 2 years, but by 4 months less than that. Now, it was reduced by 3.5 months, and the stories claim that it was reduced by 2 years, and then 4 months. Which is not accurate.

    However, 11 years and 3 months is 135 months. 85% of that is 114.75 months, so the maximum reduction should be 20.25 months. This latest reduction will likely be partially rolled back, as the 85% requirement is a very solid requirement.

  • ... this happens all the time with criminals, even violent ones.
    I don't think she should get this, but I don't think they should either.

  • She is something else. She somehow married into a very wealthy family who knew full well of her crimes. I would threaten to disown my kid if he ever planned on marrying someone who willfully committed a massive fraud on many victims, not only financial but also causing actual harm to their health and well being.
  • But being a blonde MILF who can speak with a husky voice certainly helps.
  • for courts to suddenly start walking back sentences and trials for criminals

Slashdot Top Deals

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. -- Albert Einstein

Close