[ad_1]
A U.S. jury on Thursday convicted former Theranos President Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani of defrauding investors and patients about the once-$9 billion blood-testing startup.
The jury in San Jose, Calif., deliberated for a little more than five days before convicting Balwani on two counts of conspiracy and 10 counts of fraud, a spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Stephanie Hinds said.
Sentencing is scheduled for November 15.
Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes, who initially faced the same charges, was found guilty of three counts of fraud and one count of conspiracy in a separate trial in January. She is scheduled to be sentenced on September 26.
They were given a separate trial after Holmes said she would testify that Balwani abused her in their romantic relationship. Balwani has denied the allegations.
“We are pleased with the jury’s hard work and attention to the evidence presented,” Hinds said in a statement. “We applaud the verdict and look forward to the sentencing process.”
Balwani’s lawyer, Jeffrey Coopersmith, said the defence was “clearly disappointed with the verdict” and would consider all options, including an appeal.
Balwani and Holmes were charged in 2018 with lying to investors about the company’s financials and its machines’ ability to pass extensive tests with a few drops of blood. Prosecutors also accused the couple of deceiving patients about the accuracy of the tests.
Investors in Theranos were drawn to Holmes, her deep, authoritative voice, Steve Jobs-esque black turtleneck, and her promise to disrupt the lab testing industry by creating portable machines that could run a variety of tests.
The company touts partnerships with drugmakers, pharmacies and the U.S. military, and has an investment from media mogul Rupert Murdoch.
After Theranos collapsed Wall Street Journal Beginning in 2015, a series of articles were published suggesting its equipment was flawed and inaccurate.
At the trial, Holmes made the somewhat unusual decision to testify in his defense and deny lying to investors. She argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.
[ad_2]
Source link