As the 8th day of trial of United States v. Charlie Javice and Olivier Amar continued in the Southern District of New York, defense attorneys faced repeated roadblocks in their efforts to present evidence that JPMorgan Chase was fully aware of the nature of Frank’s user data before acquiring the startup for $175 million.
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, siding with prosecutors, issued several rulings that prevented the jury from seeing key evidence, including internal JPMorgan reviews and communications that could suggest the bank knowingly overlooked the distinction between website visitors and registered users.
Judge Suppresses Evidence of JPMorgan’s Awareness
From the outset, defense attorneys argued that JPMorgan knew before, during, and after the acquisition that the 4.25 million user figure was based on website visits, not individual accounts. Yet, every attempt to introduce evidence supporting this claim was met with fierce opposition from prosecutors and shut down by Judge Hellerstein.
Internal JPMorgan Review Blocked: Defense attorney Christopher Tayback attempted to introduce evidence showing that, after acquiring Frank, JPMorgan conducted a review and confirmed that the 4.25 million figure was based on website traffic analytics. The judge dismissed this as irrelevant.
Claims That JPMorgan Wasn’t Concerned: When Tayback argued that JPMorgan was never misled by Frank’s reported user numbers and that the bank had accepted Google Analytics data as accurate, the prosecution objected, and the judge ruled that such arguments risked “confusing the jury.” Surely, a 2021 article had Javice claiming Frank helped 300 thousand students, and another claiming 400 thousand.
Sallie Mae Validation Excluded: A similar review had been conducted by Sallie Mae, another financial institution that worked with Frank, validating the same user metrics. The judge ruled this evidence inadmissible.
Search Engine Optimization (SEO) Presentation Censored: Defense attorneys wanted to show that JPMorgan executives had reviewed Frank’s SEO data and website traffic trends, suggesting they were more interested in its ability to generate future users than in its existing email list. Judge Hellerstein prohibited the defense from presenting this argument.
Prosecution Fights to Keep Jury Focused on Fraud Allegations
The prosecution, led by Assistant U.S. Attorney Micah F. Fergenson, argued aggressively to keep the trial focused solely on whether Javice and Amar misrepresented Frank’s user data during the acquisition. Prosecutors insisted that whether or not JPMorgan should have scrutinized the data more closely was irrelevant to the fraud charges.
- “Victim negligence is not a defense to fraud,” Fergenson stated, dismissing any argument that JPMorgan’s own review process absolved the defendants.
This position was echoed by Judge Hellerstein, who repeatedly ruled that any evidence regarding JPMorgan’s internal assessments or post-acquisition actions would be more misleading than informative for the jury.
Key Witness Testimony Stifled
When Jennifer Wong, a former Frank employee, took the stand, defense attorneys sought to elicit testimony that would support their argument that JPMorgan was fully aware of the nature of Frank’s user numbers.
Google Analytics Data Confirmed: Wong testified that she personally verified that the 4.25 million figure came from Google Analytics, a widely accepted industry standard for tracking website traffic.
JPMorgan Sent Privacy Policy Emails to Frank Users: Defense attorneys pointed out that, months after the acquisition, JPMorgan sent emails to Frank’s registered users, acknowledging that only about 400,000 users had actual accounts. The judge ruled that this evidence was not relevant.
Wong’s Termination by JPMorgan: Wong was fired from JPMorgan Chase just one day before she was set to receive a $170,000 retention bonus. When asked if she felt misled or that she had ever misled JPMorgan, she firmly responded, “No.”
Despite these points, the judge continually sided with the prosecution in restricting Wong’s testimony, preventing her from elaborating on JPMorgan’s internal knowledge.
Defense Fights Back
Defense attorneys pushed back against what they described as an effort to selectively present the facts of the case. Tayback accused the prosecution of trying to “rewrite history” by ignoring evidence that JPMorgan was never deceived and knew exactly what it was acquiring.
- “If the government is allowed to argue there was a cover-up after the acquisition, then the jury should also hear that JPMorgan had full knowledge before the deal closed,” Tayback argued.
Judge Hellerstein dismissed this argument and refused to allow evidence that could undermine the government’s narrative of a fraudulent scheme.
What’s Next?
The defense has hinted that it may call additional witnesses to testify about JPMorgan’s internal due diligence and post-acquisition reviews, though given today’s rulings, it remains uncertain how much of that testimony will be allowed.
As the trial progresses, the central question remains: was JPMorgan truly deceived, or is the government blocking evidence that could tell a different story? The defense appears determined to fight to ensure the jury gets the full picture—if they are allowed to hear it.
Stay tuned for further updates on this high-stakes courtroom battle.
Charlie Javice Javice is represented by lead attorneys Jose Baez and Rosemarie Peoples of the Baez Law Firm, and Ronald Sullivan and Richard DeMaria of Ronald Sullivan PLLC. Additionally, Erica Perdomo, Sara Clark, Kirsten Nelson and Christopher Tayback of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, David Siegal, Ellen Shapiro and Eóin Beirne of Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo PC.