The closing discussion began Wednesday morning and extended into the evening with the Charlie Javice fraud trial in New York.
The important word is “user.”
Federal prosecutors say that almost four years ago, Javice scamed Jpmorgan Chase, the price the bank paid to Frank on the financial aid website, of the $175 million.
“Charlie Javis and Olivier Amar sold Frank for a lie worth $175 million,” prosecutor Nicholas Chiuciolo told the ju judge, beginning his final discussion of the website’s founder and her lieutenant EU.
The pair said, “We have always assured JPMorgan that Frank has over 4 million users and that the user is the person who started the account by providing their first, last name, phone number and email.
These users were not present, prosecutors told the ju judge. At best, the website had collected 300,000 names, phone numbers and emails, prosecutors said.
Instead, Javice and Amar said they “generated fake data for 4 million people who didn’t exist,” and handed it over to the bank to close the transaction and become hundreds of millionaires. “Name, phone number, email? Everything was fake.”
Users meant future bank customers, according to prosecutors.
Prosecutors say they believe Javice will become the new owner of the names, emails and addresses of all 4 million of these Frank users if they tricked a bank executive to buy Frank.
Prosecutors said they were “at the start of their financial journey.” JPMorgan can use Frank’s data (these names and other contact information) to reach these “users” directly and sell their initial checking accounts, credit cards and car loans.
Finishing the discussion on Wednesday in five weeks of testimony, Havis’s lawyers tried to show that this was not what the user meant.
Instead, her lawyer said she told the bank that only 4 million people visited the website and clicked a few clicks on the numbers supported by Google Analytics.
Javice’s chief defense lawyer, Jose Baez, told the ju counsel, told the ju judge that the country’s largest bank would have believed that 4 million people had created outspoken website accounts.
“If 4.25 million people go to that website, there’s no way they can all fill out FAFSA,” Baez said, referring to the free federal student aid application filled out by 17 million students a year.
“I’m going to talk straight to you – they knew,” Baez said of the bank. “They knew exactly what they were buying,” he said.
“”User” means many things, including website visitors,” read the slides used to close the Amar discussion. His defense attorney, Matthew I. Menchel, appealed to the ju judge that the prosecutors were “trying to hug Amar and Havitse together.”
Amar has been out of the loop, which has led to key moments in alleged conspiracy, and has actually urged him to correct false traffic statistics during negotiations, the lawyer argued.
“It contradicts the person trying to deceive someone, and that contradicts the way they work together,” Menchel told the ju referee.
Related Stories
JPMorgan wanted Javice, not her data
Throughout five weeks of testimony, Havis’ defense attorneys have promoted the theory that she is a young and promising microfinance star. The bank wanted her, not her data, and only screamed out of the buyer’s regret a few months later, Baez told the ju umpire on Wednesday.
Baez, who filed a closing statement as the lead lawyer for Casey Anthony’s acquittal, frequently used humor to convince the ju judge that it’s hilarious to think that Jpmorgan Chase had previously been covered in bamboo.
“Someone took the bank!” he fired Havis a year after the merger and laughed at the bank’s reaction when closing Frank. “It was Charlie’s child!”
At another point, Baez joked to JP Morgan that $175 million was “not much money at all. This was exclusive money.”
And because who was a banker and the Monopoly game was based, he asked hypothetically and answered his own questions to sniff out laughs in court: “Jpmorgan himself.”
Definition of “user”
When we hear that the central dispute in front of the ju apprentice – the government’s lawyer, Havis, and her co-defendant will close the argument, this is: As an unknown clicker? Or as a potential tracking customer that banks can send emails and texts?
US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein raised the question in court Tuesday as part of his preparation to direct the ju apprentice on the law before deliberation.
“What about the argument that they were telling the truth by chasing, “We have 4.25 million users?” ” he asked Georgia Kostpros, an assistant lawyer in the United States.
“That was a lie,” the prosecutor replied immediately.
“But there are exactly the same number of users who have visited the website,” the judge pushed, referring to the Google Analytics total. “And they’re called users.”
Kostopoulos rebutted at a meeting where both Javice and Amar were present on July 21, 2021, and Javice was the one who provided Frank and other personal identification information as part of the sign-up for users to sign up for their website accounts.
The judge restricted the argument to two hours on one side.
The government first presented the argument, followed by Javice’s. After lunch, the ju-degrees heard the argument on behalf of Amar, followed by a brief rebuttal statement by the government.
The two co-defendants are accused of conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud, along with separate numbers of wire, bank and securities fraud. They face a potential maximum sentence of 30 years in prison.
March 26, 2025: This story will be updated throughout the day on Wednesday and includes details of the discussions of the closing all day.
