July 7 – A U.S. judge on Thursday convicted former Theranos Inc President Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani of defrauding investors and patients over the start of a $ 9 billion blood test.
A San Jose, California, court judge has been in custody for more than five days before convicting Balwani of two counts of conspiracy and 10 counts of fraud, said U.S. spokeswoman Stephanie Hinds.
The sentence was scheduled for November 15.
Theranos founder, Elizabeth Holmes, who initially faced similar charges, was convicted of three counts of fraud and one of conspiracy in another January case. He is scheduled to be sentenced on September 26.
They were on various charges after Holmes said he would testify that Balwani was abusing him in their romantic relationship. Balwani dismissed the allegations.
“We are pleased with the hard work of the judges and the consideration of the evidence presented,” Hinds said in a statement. “We welcome the decision and look forward to the trial.”
Balwani’s lawyer Jeffrey Coopersmith said the defendants’ lawyers were “clearly disappointed with the decision” and would consider all possible alternatives, including a complaint.
Balwani and Holmes were charged in 2018 for lying to investors about the company’s finances and the ability of its equipment to perform multiple tests from a few drops of blood. Prosecutors also accused the pair of misleading patients about the accuracy of the tests.
Theranos investors are drawn to Holmes, with his deep, authoritative voice, the black Steve Jobs-Esque turtleneck, and his promise to improve the laboratory testing industry by building portable equipment that can use extensive testing.
The company proposed to work with U.S. drug manufacturers, pharmacists, and the military and received investment from media mogul Rupert Murdoch.
Theranos fell after the Wall Street Journal published a series of articles, starting in 2015, that suggested that its devices were flawed and faulty.
In the case, Holmes made the unusual decision to testify in defense and denied any wrongdoing against investors. He argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the decision.