The sixth day of testimony in the trial of Charlie Javice and Olivier Amar focused on digital records, data transactions, and discussions surrounding student data acquisitions. Prosecutors presented evidence to support their claims of fraudulent activity, while the defense argued that Javice fully disclosed the numbers provided and that JPMorgan failed to conduct proper due diligence before acquiring her company, Frank.
Google Metadata and the Disputed Records
The prosecution called Cory Gaddis, a records custodian at Google, to authenticate Google Drive documents associated with Javice and Amar’s email accounts. The government sought to establish that these documents contained inflated student user numbers provided to JPMorgan during the acquisition of Frank.
Gaddis explained how Google Drive records retain metadata logs, showing who created, modified, or accessed certain documents. The prosecution introduced a document titled “Records Needed,” arguing that it was manipulated to inflate user numbers. However, during cross-examination, defense attorney Eoin Beirne questioned the limitations of metadata, highlighting that while it shows who accessed and edited a document, it does not reveal the specific changes made. This opened the door to Javice’s defense—that the data was transparently presented to JPMorgan, and any misinterpretations were due to the bank’s failure to verify the numbers properly.
Key Defense Argument: The defense emphasized that JPMorgan received the documents and had ample opportunity to review and question the numbers before the acquisition. Beirne noted that while Google metadata can track edits within its ecosystem, once a document is downloaded and emailed externally—such as to JPMorgan—it leaves Google’s tracking system. This suggests that JPMorgan’s due diligence team had direct access to review the data but failed to detect any issues.
Student Data Acquisition: A Negotiation, Not a Fraud
Another key witness, Tani Rae Ochs, a former data sales representative at Exact Data, testified regarding conversations she had with Javice and Amar in 2021 about purchasing student data. The prosecution aimed to use her testimony to suggest an attempt by the defendants to acquire student information in a deceptive manner. However, under cross-examination, Ochs clarified that no data was ever purchased from Exact Data—a crucial distinction for the defense.
Key Defense Argument: Attorney Christopher Tayback questioned Ochs, arguing that discussing a potential data purchase is not evidence of fraud. He pointed out that business negotiations for student data were common practice and were not hidden from JPMorgan. The defense stressed that Javice had openly provided user statistics based on available data sources and had not misled JPMorgan about where the numbers came from.
The Defense’s Narrative: JPMorgan’s Failure to Investigate
Throughout the trial, the defense has maintained that JPMorgan was responsible for verifying Frank’s data before completing the acquisition. They argued that Javice never misrepresented user numbers but instead provided the data as requested, relying on JPMorgan’s experts to conduct due diligence.
During legal motions, defense attorneys challenged the relevance of certain government exhibits, claiming that the bank’s own internal review process—or lack thereof—should be under scrutiny. They further noted that JPMorgan had access to alternative verification methods, such as cross-referencing external data sources, which they failed to employ.
Upcoming Testimony & Legal Motions
As the trial proceeds, the court is set to hear testimony from Jennifer Wong, a former employee at Frank, who may provide additional insight into how the company handled its user data. Additionally, the judge will rule on whether certain prior statements from witnesses can be admitted, particularly those that the prosecution claims support its fraud allegations.
The defense, however, remains firm in its position: Javice provided the data openly, and any misinterpretation or overvaluation of Frank’s worth was a failure on JPMorgan’s part. The case continues to unfold, with further testimony scheduled for March 4, 2025.
The post Court Testimony Sheds Light on Key Dispute in Javice Trial appeared first on ARTVOICE.