Is it the chief exec that is guilty of these things in law? I think that a blood test lab in the US is supposed to have a designated and qualified responsible person in charge of it for regulatory purposes in the USA, and that was never Elizabeth Holmes. That may ultimately be the reason why it is not she that gets found guilty of doing dodgy blood tests. Though part of Theranos' regulatory failings was that it didn't always have a suitable person designated for that role, because it didn't always comply with regulations for what it was doing, because it didn't always admit that is what it was. So there is some complexity there.
I recently read the book Bad Blood
about Theranos. What was going on was, as in many criminal operations, exceedingly complicated. They were substantially operating as a normal blood test lab, doing normal conventional tests, in part to conceal the fact that either their machines didn't work, or that specific testing modules within the machine didn't work, or both. They marketed their tech on the basis it only needed small samples, which they never got to work with any test. So in practice they did a lot of standard tests on standard size samples, using some waffle about not ready yet to do small sample for that test. But against that complex background there were a lot of dodgy blood tests done, on excessively small samples, or with sensors that didn't work very well. So that complexity would have made the evidential case difficult. Regulatory action was eventually taken against it to close it down as blood test lab, because it was not complying with the necessary regulations to operate as a normal blood test lab, or admitting that is what it was, although that is what it was doing a lot of the time.
The book (a gift) was much more interesting than I expected. When Musk was sending threats to his workers not to give away corporate secrets, that was exactly what Theranos did. Everything in Theranos was a corporate secret. And heavily compartmentalised to try and prevent anyone seeing enough to join the dots and work out it added up to criminality. The stories about how it used the scariest lawyer in the US to stalk ex-workers who had decided to reveal the law-breaking going on is part of what makes it a good read. Also the consistent support it got from powerful people, who believed implicitly in it because they were so impressed by Elizabeth Holmes, and who wouldn't listen to credible stories of wrong-doing from whistle-blowers.