A federal appeals court in California has upheld the criminal convictions, sentencing, and restitution requirements for Elizabeth Holmes, the former CEO of Theranos. Holmes was found guilty of orchestrating a massive fraud through her biotech startup, which claimed to revolutionize blood testing with minimal samples. The court also upheld the nearly 13-year sentence for her former partner and Theranos COO, Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, along with restitution orders for both individuals.
Holmes, once celebrated as a pioneering entrepreneur, had built Theranos into a company valued at $9 billion. The startup attracted high-profile investors who were convinced by its promises of groundbreaking technology. However, investigations later revealed that Theranos’ blood-testing technology was unreliable and that the company had misled investors, patients, and business partners. The scandal ultimately led to criminal charges, and Holmes was convicted on four federal counts of fraud.
The recent decision came from a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which unanimously rejected claims that Holmes’ 2022 trial was tainted by evidentiary errors. One of the primary arguments in her appeal centered on testimony from a former Theranos employee, Dr. Kingshuk Das. Holmes contended that Das, who served as the company’s lab director, provided expert opinions without being properly vetted as an expert witness.
Das testified that, based on internal assessments, the Edison blood-testing device was unsuitable for clinical use and had been underperforming since its inception. He also stated that when he raised concerns with Holmes, she attributed the problems to laboratory control failures rather than flaws in the device itself. While the appellate court acknowledged that some of Das’ testimony veered into expert territory, it ultimately ruled that any error in allowing his statements was harmless.
The court found that Das had sufficient qualifications to testify on the subject due to his extensive experience in clinical laboratories. Furthermore, the judges concluded that his testimony was only one piece of a much larger body of evidence against Holmes. The government had also presented proof that Theranos misrepresented its financial stability, exaggerated partnerships with major companies, and falsely claimed military and pharmaceutical validation of its technology.
Given the strength of the other evidence, the panel determined that Das’ testimony did not have a significant impact on the jury’s decision. The ruling emphasized that the government had established a pattern of misrepresentations that extended beyond the technical failings of Theranos’ devices.
With this appeal denied, Holmes’ legal options are now limited. She may attempt to have her case reviewed by the full appellate court or petition the U.S. Supreme Court, though both avenues are considered unlikely to succeed.
