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.
Sometimes cases hinge on what the rules readily facilitate rather than on details that one might find more morally satisfying.
Those cases may be brought for the right reasons but the law sometimes is at odds with going after someone "for the right reasons."
You could consider it a kind of legal hack. It happens fairly often both in crime or legal drama shows and in the real world.
In theory the prosecutor should be equally motivated for any offense. Otherwise we are not a nation of laws, but one of men. And that is not good thing.
Frankly, on my experiences: rule of law does not exist; the justice system is not about justice; most people do not have the rights they think they do, and even when they are violated the system will nor stand up for them; there is extremely little action on incompetence and even misconduct by those holding power (judges, prosecutors, etc).