In this case it seems to be a matter of distance, not power.

Imagine that, rather than the CEO making shit up, the case was about a lowly lab technician who faked results out of laziness or recklessness. Even though his fraud ultimately impacted the patients, he would probably still get convicted for defrauding his boss or the company he directly worked for, not the patients he never met or knew.

I think you have to look at the client side of the power equation. Nobody in the government is going to stick their neck out because a few voiceless plebs may have got the wrong blood test results at Walmart.

If your client was a wealthy person or large corporation and you knowingly lied to them about the performance of your product or service which caused them damages, would you get charged?

There's a difference, lab tech would impact individuals, but he wouldn't make false claims to the general public as the company's main selling point. Here we have someone basically selling snake oil to people, and still she was found guilt only for hurting her investors.

Ultimately, does this mean that the next fraudster will get away with it as long as they keep their investors in the loop about the lies?

> There's a difference, lab tech would impact individuals, but he wouldn't make false claims to the general public as the company's main selling point.

But when it's the CEO who does it, doesn't she do both? I mean, those individuals who get the fake test results are also members of the general public.

Unfortunately, they’ll get away with it as long as the company value goes up. As long as investors make money, who told whom what is irrelevant.

The Sacklers kind of got away with it. They're not going to prison for dealing drugs.

The law really is weighted in favor of investors.

The last I've heard of it, it seems it's not over yet for the Sacklers.

https://www.reuters.com/business/judge-tosses-deal-shielding...

well distance to common people correlates at least in one direction with power ... so it is directly related.

I maybe agree that that's what that comment probably should have been focussed on, but they did explicitly cal out the "prosecutors" for having "fucked up" getting the conviction.