> Salmon says wire fraud is among the easiest crimes to prove: everything is done by wire now, so "you show the lie, you show the wire, boom". But it's actually not enough to show a "lie" and then a "wire". Check
> And, aside from that, there's a legal difference between that and wildly extrapolating from realistic revenue forecasts to irrationally high outcomes you merely hope could happen if everything breaks your way.
I have to say, I came away from the article with a very different impression than you. I definitely got the impression from Matt that just being unrealistic about revenue numbers etc is not enough to prove wire fraud. Hell, he even compares Theranos to other startups quite directly.
> And, aside from that, there's a legal difference between that and wildly extrapolating from realistic revenue forecasts to irrationally high outcomes you merely hope could happen if everything breaks your way.
I have to say, I came away from the article with a very different impression than you. I definitely got the impression from Matt that just being unrealistic about revenue numbers etc is not enough to prove wire fraud. Hell, he even compares Theranos to other startups quite directly.