Instead of dropping conspiracies one should ask for proof. The fact you couldn't name a single male CEO who had a similar level of Fraud should be proof enough the court system treated this fairly-ish compared to past levels of fraud.

This wasn't just product fraud. It wasn't just money lost. Non-investors had their lives ruined from wrong medical advice being given. People died as a result.

I think the bhopal disaster is a rough comparison for how gross negligance that cannot be attributed to 'mistakes' do lead to convictions. https://www.goldmanprize.org/blog/eight-people-convicted-on-...

There have been several CEOs who have been arrested for a wide range of crimes. Some of these CEOs led tech companies. Most of them are men.

There is literally another man who is in jail for the same crimes, and he got a sentence that is two years longer.

Gender discrimination and unbalance is undeniable, but in this case. I don't believe it is playing a large role, and I don't believe it is influencing in the direction that you believe it to be.

This style of discourse is lame.

You listed a lot of closed questions, with a heavy implication of bias (or something.."I'm just asking the questions!").

Yet despite providing no answers, this ALL bugs you.

If you've got something to say, come out and say it.

Off the top of my head, Trevor Milton? I think you may have not tried hard enough to invalidate this thesis.

Bernie Ebbers did 13 years. More recently and much more relevant, Zachary Apte and Jessica Richman of uBiome have been indicted and are fugitives.

Many (though not enough) CEOs have been sent to prison. The industrial sector from which they originate is irrelevant.

Yeah it bugs me too. I don't disagree with it, I'm not saying she shouldn't have been sent to prison, I'm not saying she should have had a lighter sentence, but it is strange that despite so few female tech founders, one of the first sent to prison was a woman.

Another narrative that might work is: it's hard to be a female founder, so only the most "bold" (in whatever way you want) get investment, and it was precisely this investment that ended up being the reason she is being punished. i.e. as a man it's easier to get investment so men don't have to resort to fraud. Maybe combine that with investors being more likely to be defrauded by a woman because they let their guard down more. I don't know. This narrative is too full of stereotypes and I'm not sure I like it, and I'm sure men have resorted to fraud to get investment, just maybe not as popular. Maybe also add that being a prominent female founder gave her more fame than the average guy in the same role, exacerbating the problem and potentially the punishment?