> Only 11? Gosh she literally faking medical results with death consequence
I agree that her actions were egregious, but those weren't what the trial was about. The trial was about defrauding investors, not about defrauding customers.
I don't know if there is a separate trial about that, or if it's too hard to proof harm in an individual case, or if nobody ever bothered. Hard to get money out of a failed company.
> The trial was about defrauding investors, not about defrauding customers.
Yeah, f@ck the customers. In the Capitalistic utopia of the USA, you cannot be allowed to embarrass the oligarchy, whether they work in private equity, the Fortune 100, or the military-industrial complex. They really are between a rock and a hard place with Holmes. She's obviously psychopathic enough to raise ungodly amounts of money, whatever the cost, but she embarrassed the wrong kind of people. So we wind up with a moderate sentence that means she will do hard time (to scare people away from outright fraud), but not too much (so she will be able to get back into the game after).
Perhaps from a pragmatic perspective you could think that this was the easiest case to get a conviction on. The prosecution would be mindful to get that one first so they don't cause a double jeopardy acquittal if they miss on the case that is harder to prove, but more correct in a moral sense.
They could now bring that case without worrying that she'll get away without repercussion.
I agree that her actions were egregious, but those weren't what the trial was about. The trial was about defrauding investors, not about defrauding customers.
I don't know if there is a separate trial about that, or if it's too hard to proof harm in an individual case, or if nobody ever bothered. Hard to get money out of a failed company.