The mont when my long-term plan finally cos to fruition is here.
Since the beginning of my tenure, I have nurtured my connection with Rachel, which allowed access to information about Theranos.
Three days after our eting at the tropolitan Club, I called Raymond to accept his offer.
That is, to temporarily take on a consulting role at the family office.
"I'm okay with it, but I'm not sure if Goldman will approve. I heard moonlighting is prohibited…?"
"Don't worry about that,"
Raymond's voice over the phone was full of confidence.
He ant that he would handle it himself.
And indeed, Raymond smoothly resolved the issue, in a slightly unusual way.
The na of the family office introduced by Raymond was
‘Heritage Partners Group.'
Heritage Partners requested specialized advice from Goldman, for which Goldman ford a dedicated team.
Raymond had staffed in that team.
It took about two weeks to finalize all procedures, but it was done in a way that was legally and internally sound.
Finally, I was able to proudly look into the portfolio of Heritage Partners.
Specifically, the corporate information of Theranos.
Clicking on the folder, I involuntarily swallowed dryly.
I was a bit excited.
If I could just expose Theranos's scam, a whopping 10 billion dollars could fall into my hands.
Proving the fraud wouldn't be hard.
I already had a precise understanding of their deceit.
Theranos's main product was ‘Newton,' a dical diagnostic device that incorporated innovative technology.
They had been aggressively promoting Newton, claiming it could diagnose hundreds of diseases with just a single drop of blood.
But,
‘It's all a lie.'
Such technology does not exist, so I decided to focus on the technology-related docunts.
There must be a flaw sowhere.
That was all I needed to find.
With this mindset, I scrutinized the docunts all night long.
One day, two days, three days…
I ticulously reviewed the relevant docunts and conducted further investigations.
But, the results were quite different from what I expected.
After three days of dedicated effort, I was left staring at the screen, stunned and deflated.
‘This is it…?'
The technical evidence provided by Theranos consisted of two main parts.
The first was partnerships with major pharmaceutical companies.
[For the past 7 years, we have been collaborating with 10 of the top 15 large pharmaceutical companies to validate our technology.]
It wasn't a lie.
Indeed, since 2006, Theranos had been carrying out nurous joint projects with major pharmaceutical companies.
Primarily, they introduced their product into clinical trials…
Simply put, it ant providing Theranos's ‘Newton' device to patients participating in the trials.
With this device, patients could perform blood tests at ho.
Just a single drop of blood was needed.
Imdiate results would be available, which would be automatically sent to their doctor.
The doctor could then check for side effects based on the test results and adjust dication dosages accordingly.
This could lead to quicker interventions than regular dical appointnts, potentially preventing severe side effects early.
It was a great idea.
But as I ntioned…
‘There's no such technology in reality.'
Theranos provided collaboration docunts with various pharmaceutical companies as evidence, but all these docunts rely stated that the collaboration had begun.
There was no information on how these collaborations concluded.
Probably, they fell through midway.
The partner companies must have realized the reality of the product and pulled out.
Of course, this was rely speculation.
To prove fraud, I needed to verify the facts, so I contacted each pharmaceutical company…
It was not easy to find related docunts.
"Currently, there is no data confird regarding the collaboration with Theranos."
"Does that an there was no collaboration at all?"
"No, that's not what I an. You ntioned the docunts from 2006, right? If the project was discontinued then, it would have been transferred to cold storage three years later. It might be there."
Cold storage, aning buried in a vast tomb of data.
"So, being in cold storage ans that the agreent failed."
"Yes, but just because a project failed doesn't an there was a problem with the product. There are various reasons why collaborations fail."
"Is there a way to obtain those docunts?"
"That's difficult. Since it involves proprietary technology information, access is not possible without going through Theranos, the contract party."
Proprietary technology cannot be accessed casually, even by Theranos's investors.
This route was blocked.
So, I followed the next clue.
The second piece of evidence Theranos provided.
It was none other than research commissioned by my alma mater.
[In 2010, we disclosed our proprietary technology to Johns Hopkins School of dicine and requested a feasibility study. The researchers evaluated it as innovative technology…]
The report excerpt provided by Theranos listed five professors' nas.
I tried to contact them directly but failed every ti.
I left my number with their secretary, but it was unlikely that the professors would contact first.
The most certain way was to visit them in person.
However, it was impossible to go to Baltimore during Goldman's working hours.
So, I used another thod.
Several seniors who had been kind to during dical school were still at Johns Hopkins Hospital, and I decided to contact one of them.
"What's up? How's it going, Wall Street hell?"
Although we had not interacted for a long ti in a previous life and our relationship had cooled, it had been less than two years since I graduated from dical school now.
One particularly ddleso senior willingly went to find the professor and even persuaded him to talk to about this important matter.
Thanks to him, I finally got to speak directly with the professor.
He was a professor of clinical toxicology.
He rembered the eting with Theranos well.
"It was quite an interesting approach. The data they showed had the potential to be innovative."
"Professor, do you think that technology was viable?"
"Well, I don't know about that. I only saw the data Theranos provided. A proper evaluation would require a third party to conduct separate experints. That's why I requested they send the product for a comparative study, but they kept delaying and eventually the contact was lost, probably."
It ended inconclusively.
When I told the professor that Theranos was already using his na in their marketing, he was furious and sent a docunt.
It was a copy of the eting report summarized by Johns Hopkins School of dicine.
It clearly stated the university's disclair.
"The above evaluation is based solely on the data provided by Theranos and is not the result of independent verification of the technology by this university."
At the bottom of the second page, there was even this phrase:
"Nothing in this report should be interpreted as an endorsent of the product or service by Johns Hopkins School of dicine."
Despite this warning, Theranos quoted only the phrase ‘high potential to be innovative technology' from this report.
They used only the favorable parts to mislead as if they had received endorsent from an authoritative university.
Just looking at the circumstances, this was already suspicious.
If there had been real results, the professor would have welcod a third party conducting objective experints, as he requested.
But Theranos did not do so.
‘This is clear evidence.'
Yet, I still felt uneasy.
If you ask what was so unsettling…
‘It's too… sloppy.'
This was not the thod of a professional con artist.
Perhaps if they had bribed a proper research institution to manipulate data.
Making such blatantly detectable lies is sothing a child might do.
Could they really have deceived the entire world with such a shoddy trick?
It seed unlikely.
This made even more suspicious.
How could Theranos have achieved a corporate value of 10 billion dollars with such flimsy evidence?
There must be another reason.
Then, a thought suddenly struck .
‘Raymond couldn't possibly be unaware of this…?'
The Raymond I t was not a foolish man.
It ans that he couldn't have believed in Theranos's potential based solely on such docunts.
I need to et in person to verify.
I sent Raymond a carefully crafted email.
But the reply that ca back was unexpected.
So the next evening,
I found myself sitting across from Raymond at a restaurant near Goldman.
As soon as we ordered, he placed his smartphone on the table and asked,
"May I record this conversation? It's my principle to record all official etings."
At his words, I suppressed a smirk inwardly.
Such a principle seed improbable.
Who would readily speak in front of a lawyer who starts recording right away?
It seed he thought I was an easy target.
I responded with a calm smile, just as he did.
"Then I should record as well."
A slight wrinkle ford on Raymond's forehead.
He seed not too keen on recording the conversation.
I calmly explained with a smile why it was necessary to record.
"Raymond, you will rember exactly what I say based on the recording, but I must rely on vague mories. This could lead to misunderstandings. It's to prevent that."
Raymond seed to ponder for a mont, but then he nodded.
He must have judged it wasn't too big a risk.
Thus, we both pressed the record button and continued our conversation.
I got straight to the point.
"So companies' data is insufficient. Especially for Theranos, key information is missing."
"There should be an abundance of data for Theranos."
"There's a considerable amount, but most of it concerns marketability."
The volu of data provided by Theranos was enormous.
However, most of it was related to product launches.
Contracts with large distribution chains, agreents with the Departnt of Defense, etc.
If all the signed contracts were successful and deliveries completed, they could record sales of 100 million dollars by the end of the year…that was the main point.
So, ‘most' of the data related to Theranos was factual.
But there was a crucial problem.
‘There's no product.'
More precisely, there are only empty cans without any function.
Such technology does not exist in the world.
"The most critical technical evidence is missing."
"There must be a reason for that."
I observed Raymond's facial expressions as I laid out all my findings.
I started with my contacts with the pharmaceutical companies, and he responded calmly with an expressionless face.
"If it was a project from a long ti ago, it naturally would have failed. Theranos's product has been improved over a long period through various trials and errors. Especially in the early stages, there were many failures."
"Then, I need the most recent successful clinical data."
Raymond brought up sothing unexpected.
"Just a few months ago, we also requested those docunts from our side."
As a lawyer, he had necessary due diligence steps to take.
He realized there were missing docunts and contacted Theranos directly.
"They asked if the docunts were urgently needed. They ntioned that the docunts might have been lost due to several office moves and said they needed to focus on product launches now and would look for them later."
"And after that…?"
"We didn't receive the docunts. Instead, we got verification in another way."
"What thod was that?"
"A professor on the board made a verification statent."
This ant that the professor had bypassed the need for technical proof with just a ‘trust ' kind of statent.
Normally, this wouldn't make sense, but…
"It's Professor Carrington from Stanford. He's a mber of the board and serves as a technical advisor for Theranos."
Carrington is one of the star professors at Stanford.
He also served as a director and technical advisor for Theranos.
If so, he must have thoroughly examined Newton's technology.
The professor reassuring that the technology was sound was enough reason for them to wait until Theranos sent the docunts.
Thus, they ended up waiting indefinitely and it fizzled out, and then I also ntioned the case of the clinical toxicology professor from Johns Hopkins University, but he remained unfazed.
"That was also in 2010. Since then, Theranos's technology has greatly advanced."
"But Theranos is using docunts with disclair clauses as technical verification docunts. This poses a problem."
"There might have been a mistake. As I said, there is no problem with the technology. Professor Carrington guarantees it."
"We still need proper evidence."
"You'd have to speak directly to Theranos to get that."
That was unlikely.
As before, they would probably drag it out until the request fizzled.
I looked Raymond straight in the eye and said, "These are docunts I absolutely need to fulfill my duty."
"What do you want to do about that? I'm just the client's lawyer."
Indeed, Raymond's reaction is concerning.
It seems clear that he, too, is suspicious of Theranos.
However, it appears he has reasons he cannot openly discuss.
‘I can sowhat guess what those reasons might be…?
If my guess is correct, Raymond won't be able to easily divulge this information.
In that case, there's only one way to go.
I took a deep breath.
"Understood. I'll handle this matter myself. Actually, there was another reason I wanted to et with you today."
"What is it?"
"I need legal advice for a personal matter."
At my words, a curious smile appeared on Raymond's lips.
"Do you want to hire as your lawyer?"
"Yes, that's right."
"Is it a matter where there might be a conflict of interest with ?"
"Well, even if there is a conflict of interest, I still want to hire you."
"Then, we should stop recording."
Raymond quietly turned off the recorder.
I also pressed the stop button.
The conversation from this point on should not be recorded.
By hiring Raymond as my lawyer, a special right has arisen.
Specifically, the attorney-client privilege.
From now on, the conversations between Raymond and are legally protected.
Even if the police co, we don't have to speak, and not even a court can force us to speak frankly.
For this reason, now that we can talk just between us without external interference, I looked Raymond straight in the eye and began to speak.
"If Hols turns out to be a fraudster, what do you intend to do?"
User Comments
0 comments from readers