I believe this case was pursued due to the flagrant disregard for the health (and thus safety) of Theranos clients. If it was 'just' financial fraud against investors, I don't believe the public would have been so angry, and the prosecutor so motivated.

However, Holmes was found not guilty on the charges related to blood tests. One of the jurors said they believed she was 'one step removed'. The blood test charges were also not directly health related, they were fraud charges, as in the patient was defrauded into believing the tests were accurate.

The comment about being 'one step removed' made me think of safety culture and how no executives at Boeing were prosecuted for the 737 MAX debacle (so far as I know).

Laws do not punish moral failings directly, no matter how big or flagrant. It is quite clear that Holmes failed to establish a safety culture that put accuracy of test results over profit or funding. But there is no law that directly addresses that particular failing, and it's hard to see how American jurisprudence and society would frame or accept such a law.

So while I do see that Holmes was punished for her lies, and those lies were related to health and safety, I do find it hard to reconcile with the idea that health and safety are more important to maintain than legitimacy and fidelity of funding a startup.

What does the Elizabeth Holmes Verdict say about Rule of Law and Safety Culture?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UXicFk5q50 - Dropout Podcast on the verdict and juror point of view.