Question for folks with knowledge of the process. Government is also arguing for Holmes to pay $800 million in restitution. Obviously she doesn't have that kind of money (neither even does her heir husband), so people she defrauded are never going to see that.
But what happens to her in that case? If the court does sign off on a restitution penalty, is it the equivalent of a creditor's judgment against her? I believe acts of fraud can't be discharged in bankruptcy, so is this judgment something that would hang over her forever? Could the defrauded parties garnish her wages?
Just curious as to how the logistics of "unpayable restitution penalties" play out in the real world.
Generally you just have your wages garnished for as long as you have an income. This would include Social Security. If, somehow, you came into significant funds again you could probably negotiate a one time payment to satisfy the judgment. That seems highly unlikely in her case though.
Generally, no, especially debt that occurred before the marriage.
That said, California is a community property state, which means that income and debts that are incurred during the marriage are considered the joint property of both spouses. Again though, Holmes debt and her husband's wealth were acquired before their marriage, so in that case it's easy to keep these separate.
Acquired before marriage, and would have to have been mind bogglingly stupid, knowing the risk of a liability finding, not to protect that with a prenuptial.
IANAL but that's generally not how it works. The timing of when the debt was incurred here would be considered when the conduct occurred that resulted in the verdict.
> not to protect that with a prenuptial
Would probably want a prenup for other reasons, but wouldn't be necessary here. Just need to ensure his pre-marriage assets weren't commingled with community property during the marriage.
if her husband is a beneficiary of a trust (i.e. as I'd assume many heirs are). would any future disbursements (if they exist, there might be none) be considered 50% hers and hence have to the settlement?
It's not that debt goes from one spouse to the other.
When you marry someone you become some sort of combined entity where assets/liabilities now belong to the husband-and-wife-estate figure and not by any of them individually (obv. disregarding the effects of prenups and similar clauses).
I'm going to guess no, given that this has all been coming down the pipe since before they got married - and I'm fairly certain no-one is foolish enough to do something like that under those circumstances.
Also, I can't imagine his family would have jumped for joy over it either without consulting several lawyers ahead of time.
From the Department of Labor information notice regarding wage garnishment:
"Title III also protects individuals by limiting the amount of earnings that may be garnished in any workweek or pay period to the lesser of 25 percent of disposable earnings or the amount by which disposable earnings are greater than 30 times the Federal minimum hourly wage prescribed by Section 6(a) (1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. This limit applies regardless of how many garnishment orders an employer receives. The Federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour."
It also states that if state limits are smaller than the state limits apply.
My understanding is that OJ Simpson moved to avoid the liability payments around the judgement against him (he was never found criminally liable, but a civil suit did). So apparently it is as easy as just moving from state to the next.
Florida has a homestead exemption, so it’s standard practice for fallen rich people to buy a home in Florida and then reverse mortgage it or do something similar for income.
Florida's exemption is one of the nicest in the country:
>Florida has one of the most generous homestead exemptions found in any state. Under the Florida exemption system, homeowners may exempt an unlimited amount of value in their home or other property covered by the homestead exemption. However, the property cannot be larger than half an acre in a municipality or 160 acres elsewhere.
Texas has one similar:
>You can protect an unlimited amount of equity in your principal residence. It applies to properties on 10 acres or less in a city, town, or village or 100 acres or less in the country (families can double this to 200 acres).
If you are "high value" and potentially at risk of a lawsuit, it is worth considering relocating to a state with favorable bankruptcy laws.
He didn't write that. From what I understand, the corporation just paid him to say he wrote it. He never actually had the rights to the book, because you can't hold copyright on something just by saying you wrote it.
A bankruptcy judge later transferred the rights from the publisher to the Goldman family. Why I have no idea. But it isn't like it was "taken" from Mr. Simpson or he "had to give" the proceeds. He got his money from the publisher and later a bankruptcy judge decided the publisher could be parted with their income stream.
>He never actually had the rights to the book, because you can't hold copyright on something just by saying you wrote it.
Obviously you can, if you negotiate it with the ghostwriter - who would just be your employee anyway or even be a team of writers, so all the copyrights can remain with you - same way Marvel has the copyright for stuff people wrote for them.
So you think the publisher assigned copyright to a guy with a huge liability settlement against him just so he could immediately assign it back to them?
Rather than the obvious "here sign this form that says we can publish a book about this and put your name on it"?
It did work but the GP is only sort of correct. OJ didn’t move to Florida to avoid repaying the debt, he did it to avoid losing his house. In Florida plaintiffs can’t seize a defendant’s primary residence or force its sale to pay a judgement.
Mostly the fact that the US litigates so much. The courts haven't been on vacation in the mean time, they've been processing cases you'll never hear about.
(downvotes notwithstanding: the US court system is quite literally full, which is why these things take so long. Even if a judge wanted to, their schedule often simply isn't open until months, sometimes more than a year, later)
Which either paints her, in my mind, as delusional, a psychopath of both.
I get maternal instincts. I get bodily autonomy.
But to make a choice to get pregnant during a trial in which you are facing up to 20 years in federal prison (with all the restrictions on parole that that incurs) was either: "she believes her own shit, to this day, that she was just one step away from a miracle", "she is only focused on herself", or "callous ploy to win favoritism from jurors" (which I also wouldn't put past her, given her multiple chameleonic efforts, above and beyond the turtlenecks and deep voice acting).
It could just as easily have been a pragmatic decision. She was already in her mid-thirties when indicted and staring down the barrel of prison into her fifties. If she wanted kids, there wasn't going to be a better time.
It is a bit amazing that people that do very bad things and cause huge prejudice that will never be fixed can get away very easy. 15 years is nothing to joke about, but if you do the math of how much money per year that means, it is better than working for a salary and a lot of people would go to prison for 1-2 years for that kind of money. "hey, who can I defraud of 50 million and I get 1 year of prison for it?"
Among other things you are not factoring in the time, anxiety, and other downsides associated with both being charged with a crime as well as also knowing that you might be charged with a crime. During both prior to and after you are charged, the trial, waiting for the sentence and of course the actual sentence. Cost of legal fees and so on. That surely would take a big impact on many people. So point is it's not just the actual prison time.
Well, not really. The money is long gone. She's now broke and facing jail time.
And the judgement is so large, even after prison she'll never have wealth beyond a middle-class lifestyle. She'll be like Jordan Belfort and die with a debt of several hundred million dollars.
It may be a long shot, but if she knew she is comiting fraud, and may be caught/sentences to bars, she may have stashed investors money in multiple ways, including having third party companies Theranos worked with that were simply a cover to get the money out legally. The size of the company and number of invoice flying back and forth indicates we will probably never find out, but once she's out for good behavior in less than 6 years, she may meet some unknown Joe Doe who will hire her at 7 figures to do nothing, in return for providing goods/services to Theranos during the company run.
Federal prison has maximum reduction of sentence of 15%. No parole. A 15 year sentence, if she gets that, will have her serve 12+ at a minimum, no less.
My knowledge of what happened is from reading the book bad blood. It doesn’t portray her as a victim and she’s much worse than Sunny and directly caused someone to commit suicide.
Don't disagree that SBF was obviously trying to curry favor with the regulatory regime, given that it was pretty much all out in the open - indeed, that was the source of CZ's major beef with him.
But this kind of shadowy argument that someone's father's ex-boss' best friend's cousin is some sort of smoking gun is nonsense.
At the end of the day, there were no implemented regulatory changes that benefited FTX or SBF. All the misappropriation of customer funds, the news about SBF having a secret "back door" for funds transfers happened regardless of any regulatory changes (or, as I stated, lack thereof) in DC.
Yes, if the relationships were as far removed as you suggest, but it's parents, friends of parents and donor recipients.
SBF's parents are Stanford lawyers who specialize in compliance and ethics. Alameda CEO's dad runs the economics department at MIT, where the current SEC Chairman was a professor. Sam was a key crypto advisor to congress and a top political donor. All of these people turned a blind eye to Sam and FTX and Alameda when it was their job to do the opposite.
But, again, to make an argument that those relationships mattered, as it relates to the apparent fraud SBF committed, one would have to argue that somehow the SEC turned a blind eye to FTX in a way they didn't towards other crypto businesses.
As others have pointed out, you don't need to appeal to securities law to find that what SBF appears to have done is fraud and theft: FTX's Ts and Cs say they wouldn't lend out customer funds. By all accounts they did lend those funds to Alameda, in addition to the fact that 1 billion in customer deposits is missing. Theft is theft, and I just fail to see (and, to be honest, haven't seen any cogent arguments to the contrary) how a more adversarial SEC would have prevented that.
It's hilarious that SBF is going to get put into jail by politicians that he donated hundreds of millions to. And funny enough, the fact that he donated money to them in such a high profile way means that they will likely slam the book on him harder just to "prove" there is no backdoor dealing.
This may be an unpopular opinion here, but Holmes is the mother of a young child and punishment for her is simultaneously punishment to the innocent child. Justice cannot be served by inflicting injustice on another. We need to be more creative in our sentencing - rather than 10 years then free, how about 25 years under some sort of restriction, that does not deprive child of their mother?
I think you can argue about the efficacy of deterrence/justice but it seems wrong to judge any sentence based on the person and their family as the focus. There are zero individuals for whom a sentence would help - but if you had no (or greatly reduced) sentences for all crime then society as a whole could suffer.
In this case it seems even more obviously bad to factor this since she got pregnant when she knew she was going to trial and likely to be convicted. Some even say the defense team wanted her pregnant for the trial. If the rule is "if you have a baby you don't have to go to jail" what type of moral hazard is this?
this case got me thinking, clearly Holmes needs to be punished for wrong doing, clearly there also needs to be a deterrence, and yet the trade off in damaging the life of an innocent seems unnecessary for me. What kind of penalty would serve the first two aims yet not result on the third?
Are we even sure that a child would be better off with a woman who is a pathological liar? You could easily argue the type of woman who would choose to get pregnant when staring down a ten year prison sentence is exactly the type of woman who would not be a good mother.
I would still argue you are to fixated on the singular case of the child. The harm Holmes did here effected hundreds if not tens of thousands of people extremely negatively (think of all the years/funding for bio research thrown down the toilet) and any future deterrence of behavior like this is worth it.
The child isn't going to be put in a group home. He lives in a $100 million Woodside estate, has a father and grandparents, and a team of nannies to raise him.
It doesn't but if she gets a lenient sentence, the other guy should get the same. But we all know he won't (most likely). May be then it's a reasonable compromise.
The other guy is not female, white or blonde. Studies have shown that women get less punishment for the same crime than men. Same way, good looking criminals also get less punishment than not-good looking ones.
And this is why I believe justice system should be blind. The person's age, sex, gender, name, family status, religion and so on should be hidden from the jury and the judge. So that we can get fair treatment for everyone.
If there's two drug traffickers convicted of selling 20 kilograms of cocaine, one came from the streets of Baltimore with no father and the other came from a supportive family in Long Island, should the sentence be the same? How about when immigrants from the former Soviet Union scam Medicare for $5 million and then at sentencing talk about how hard their childhood in Armenia Russia etc was to get a lower sentence? That's probably not fair either. There's no easy answer.
I think we should do the opposite - penalties should be sighted, and variable according to the person. i.e police officer committing a crime = harsher punishment than a homeless person trying to survive
It's a reasonable compromise that we punish the male in this situation more harshly than the female because he couldn't get himself pregnant during the trial?
That's not reasonable in any sense of the word. Even less so when you read through all the details and realize that Elizabeth was not an abused, cowed underling of the Balwani mastermind, but an active, and in many cases, initiating and driving part of the crimes they committed.
If that was the logic, Balwani would have a pretty solid grounds for appeal. "We're punishing you more because your co-conspirator has a kid now".
Sorry, can't agree with that. Don't try to correct one mistake with another mistake. They both deserve the max, no reason to reduce his if hers is improperly reduced.
I think this may be true. How can we prevent the success of this strategy, without egregiously penalising the innocent - that is the challenge. It would be disappointing if we could not imagine a way to punish wrong doing, without knowingly doing further wrong doing!
we simply need to be more creative in coming up with punishments. Perhaps we can look to Islamic jurisprudence here, rather than stick rigidly to custodial sentencing
Should you apply the same reasoning to any person with a young child?
What if someone doesn't have a child when they're arrested but, due to the complexity of the case, they're able to get pregnant and have a baby before sentencing?
Sharia law may be the answer - no set laws for punishment, we customise it according the individual case. Prison only is a brute instrument, a failure of imagination
Her child is innocent, of course, and should be as protected from everything as possible.
However he is young and shouldn't be prevented from visiting mommy in prison, but that doesn't mean society has to let mommy go (or even do a reduced sentence or an alternate sentence).
Many, many, many children already lose a parent to crime (either by them being murdered or them being the murderer).
People may say that’s the purpose but it’s pretty clearly revenge for a vast majority of the public (or why would anyone care about some girl defrauding old rich guys?)
Getting a child is personal choice and in my mind maybe even perhaps should always result in harsher sentence as clearly person did bad thinks knowing that they had a child.
> Holmes is the mother of a young child and punishment for her is simultaneously punishment to the innocent child.
If we make the case that a criminal should receive a lessor sentence because it impacts their child, does that mean that any single mom or dad who robs a business should be able to get the same treatment? A reduced sentence for armed robbery, for example?
Continuing to play devils advocate here: how do we know such a criminal would create a safe and nurturing environment for the child? Or how do we know they don’t end up raising another sociopath in their own image?
My own 2 cents: from the literature I’ve read about Elizabeth Holmes, it would not shock me that having a child was part of the defense’s strategy.
> how do we know such a criminal would create a safe and nurturing environment for the child? Or how do we know they don’t end up raising another sociopath in their own image?
How do you know a 16-year old single mother will create apropriate atmosphere? Should we perhaps mandate abortions to anyone who hasn't passed an exam and hasn't been issued a breeding licence?
The way this works today, a person is competence at raising children is untill social services prove otherwise. Kinda like innocent until proved guilty.
> The way this works today, a person is competence at raising children is untill social services prove otherwise. Kinda like innocent until proved guilty.
Nobody is talking about 16 year olds or abortions. Are you sure you’re not deliberately changing the topic and really are debating in good faith?
Why do you believe it’s appropriate to compare a random 16 year old with a convicted criminal, who is awaiting sentencing?
> a person is competence at raising children is untill social services prove otherwise. Kinda like innocent until proved guilty
And no one is arguing against that. You’re making a straw man argument.
It is revolting to read that people are considering, what if we arbitrarilly take away intrinsic rights of a person?
Well, if you can question innate right in this situation, maybe you can question them in other situations too? Then do we even have rights, to parenting, family life an others?
For a crime you render the punishment as prescribed in law, no more, no less.
Why start the reform or have exceptions for her child and not the children of other convicted people? That why does her child get that benefit, and not other children of incarcerated parents, perhaps someone who is poor and didn't get to run $10B companies in their life. Start there, let's help those children first, and then we'll get to her child too, eventually.
I've staked my [vouch]ing privileges on this flagged comment, which is civil and on-topic and and isn't in apparent violation of any rules.
The world could stand to use more empathy. If we can't find any for a small child being torn away from their mother, we are broken humans in need of repair.
> If we can't find any for a small child being torn away from their mother
"Due _entirely_ to the conscious, calculated, criminal and repeated actions of their mother" is quite the caveat to your statement, no?
There are many many loving homes. The child's father is absolutely capable of raising the child, no?
What you're actually asking for is empathy for this child ("who did nothing wrong") over empathy for the victims of criminal activity (who also "did nothing wrong").
Yes but then where is the line ? Almost every violent criminal (murderer, rapist etc) may have a family/child/parent to take care of. Are you suggesting they all should get off easy ? or Are you saying that Holmes's crime is not as heinous ?
It is likely she only got pregnant as a manipulation tactic to elicit maximum sympathy from the legal system. The timing was all too convenient.
The child is innocent but the mother is weaponizing her fetus and using it as a pawn. What is an appropriate answer or solution for the mother (ab)using the child as a hostage tactic?
There are lots of thriving and competent single parents out there. The kid can live with and be raised by daddy. In fact, the father has so much money and resources there is no reason for this kid to ever want for anything.
Getting pregnant intentionally while fully expecting a hefty prison sentence is morally bankrupt behaviour, dare I say worse than any crime she committed.
Less cynically it seems she was in a "now or never" type situation. Given her age, it's unlikely at the end of a decade long legal sentence she'd be able to have children any longer.
I obviously don't know anything personally about Mrs. Holmes, but given her husband's wealth she can be assured any children she has will be provided for even if she is in prison for the rest of her life.
Preventing a woman from bearing children may violate her right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment (8th Amendment) and her reproductive rights under the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments.
If a woman’s prison sentence is so long that she would be infertile by the time she is released, then that may impact various constitutional rights. That was my point.
The judicial system can sentence you to death, which impacts your everything. So you'd have a hard time making an argument that a sentence too long is somehow unconstitutional.
The remedy wouldn't be to shorten lengthy sentences, but to allow women to have children while in prison. According to a quick google search, some prisons already allow this, possibly in part because of this issue.
You're missing the point entirely then. It isn't about whether or not she can legally have children in prison.
There are no billionaire heirs dumb enough to have a child with an incarcerated woman. There is at least 1 foolish enough to have a child with a woman with pending charges however.
So she had 20 years to have a child and she decided to have it at the very last moment, when she was waiting for a sentence for very bad things she did? Realistically this stinks.
I already stated I have no idea as to her motivations. My point is, it isn't like the kid is going to wind up in foster care. The worst case is that her child is raised by her husband and his incredibly wealthy family. Given the circumstances (possibly spending the rest of your life in jail), who wouldn't take that option?
1400 prison pregnancies a year but this is the one that triggers leniency. I wonder what the selection mechanism is. Merely the news worthiness of the case, perhaps.
Yep - definitely not a good take, just piling on with the sensible responses to this. We cannot subvert justice on something of this magnitude, and this isn’t how the system should work for reasons articulated by others here.
no one is arguing for subversion of justice. Holmes needs to be punished and made an example of as a deterrent to others. Can there be a way of doing this without egregiously damaging the life of the child, which 15 year imprisonment of the mother surely would? Lets think about it, what could we come up with?
> and punishment for her is simultaneously punishment to the innocent child
You are being (as I read and reply) down-voted but that is a valid point. The government will prosecute parents for what they do to their children but under another circumstance the government will not take child impact into account (in the sentence) that is what that sentence does harmfully to children. Irony.
It's disappointing that Lizzie Evans is successfully playing the system and getting away with only 15 years or less for egregiously terrible crimes where she massively manipulated and abused everyone's trust from a high position.
Meanwhile, Sunny Balwani is facing more charges and possibly more jail time than Lizzie, even though she was clearly the mastermind behind everything. He was her co-conspirator, but if it hadn't been him it'd have been some other sucker.
The justice system is so political, it makes no sense.
But what happens to her in that case? If the court does sign off on a restitution penalty, is it the equivalent of a creditor's judgment against her? I believe acts of fraud can't be discharged in bankruptcy, so is this judgment something that would hang over her forever? Could the defrauded parties garnish her wages?
Just curious as to how the logistics of "unpayable restitution penalties" play out in the real world.