In even more trivia — Ms. Holmes’ counsel argues, based on later decided cases (since the briefs were filed) that at least one Circuit feels there must be a greater quantum of evidence for what was proof of defrauded investors’ “reliance” — that caused losses… before it may be considered in sentencing calculations.
Of course, this makes no logical sense.
A very capable trial judge took EVERYTHING into account, in the person of the able USDC Judge Davila — and in the end, he sentenced her WELL UNDER the maximums for which she was eligible, and even well under the recommended “minimum” sentence.
So — the idea that he was too harsh (due to a lack of strong enough proof of investor losses — as to five of the ten investors that without serious dispute all suffered massive losses)… is completely contradicted by the record in this case.
As a cynical, but practical matter — I might opine that she clearly got “credit” for having toddlers/children who would miss her mothering for ten long years (instead of twenty!), while Mr. Balwani will do about 15 years, on just about the same predicate facts. [It is also true that only a small portion of all defrauded investors testified. The spreadsheets established nearly $700 million of losses — and that put her in the 20 year sentencing range. Geez.]
Game. Set. Match.
None of this will change… anything, in Condor’s experienced opinion.
Onward, into a sunny Friday, for a mountain bike ride, by the lake’s clear waters… smile.