[Mick]

Last four takeaways on Balwani:

1) After the Elizabeth Holmes case, the DoJ streamlined the prosecution against Balwani. The govt refined their evidence, were more selective with their witnesses and had a tighter case with a tighter narrative, resulting in the conviction on all counts. They didn't call Theranos board members (e.g., Mattis) or writers like Fortune's Roger Parloff.
2) The prosecution likely benefited from learnings in the first case against Holmes.
3) Holmes met Balwani when she was 18 and he was 38. His age and decades of experience working in Silicon Valley made him a much less sympathetic figure. Basically, the jury thought he should know better. Judge Davila, who presided over both cases, disallowed Holmes' abuse claims against Balwani, but allowed their decadeslong relationship and whether Theranos investors knew they were dating to stand.  And Balwani didn't take the stand to explain the text mesages with Holmes in which he wrote that he was responsible for everything that happened at the company. And the defense was never able to counter testimony from investors and former Theranos employees that Balwani was angry and difficult to work with.
4) Consequently, Balwani will likely face very tough sentencing.  Prosecutors want to send a message to Silicon Valley to deter fraudulent fundraising. Each of the 12 sentences comes with a 20 year maximum sentence. The fact that Balwani refused to accept responsibility for the fraud and the hundreds of millions lost means that his sentence will be both lengthy and likely tougher than Holmes' sentence.

The defense has some issues for appeal:

 - Judge Davila refused to instruct the jury that they can infer that a missing Theranos database contained evidence unfavorable to the government (govt failed to preserve the evidence).
 - Holmes was found innocent of charges to defraud patients, Balwani wasn't, so...grounds for appeal.

[Mick]

Last four takeaways on Balwani:

1) After the Elizabeth Holmes case, the DoJ streamlined the prosecution against Balwani. The govt refined their evidence, were more selective with their witnesses and had a tighter case with a tighter narrative, resulting in the conviction on all counts. They didn't call Theranos board members (e.g., Mattis) or writers like Fortune's Roger Parloff.
2) The prosecution likely benefited from learnings in the first case against Holmes.
3) Holmes met Balwani when she was 18 and he was 38. His age and decades of experience working in Silicon Valley made him a much less sympathetic figure. Basically, the jury thought he should know better. Judge Davila, who presided over both cases, disallowed Holmes' abuse claims against Balwani, but allowed their decadeslong relationship and whether Theranos investors knew they were dating to stand.  And Balwani didn't take the stand to explain the text mesages with Holmes in which he wrote that he was responsible for everything that happened at the company. And the defense was never able to counter testimony from investors and former Theranos employees that Balwani was angry and difficult to work with.
4) Consequently, Balwani will likely face very tough sentencing.  Prosecutors want to send a message to Silicon Valley to deter fraudulent fundraising. Each of the 12 sentences comes with a 20 year maximum sentence. The fact that Balwani refused to accept responsibility for the fraud and the hundreds of millions lost means that his sentence will be both lengthy and likely tougher than Holmes' sentence.

The defense has some issues for appeal:

 - Judge Davila refused to instruct the jury that they can infer that a missing Theranos database contained evidence unfavorable to the government (govt failed to preserve the evidence).
 - Holmes was found innocent of charges to defraud patients, Balwani wasn't, so...grounds for appeal.