Monopoly Money, Moon Shots, and a $175M Deal: Drama Peaks in Javice Trial Summations

The closing arguments in U.S. v. Charlie Javice and Olivier Amar unfolded like an HBO courtroom thriller, complete with board game metaphors, space-race references, and a defense strategy that painted JPMorgan Chase as the corporate Goliath trying to rewrite history.

First came the prosecution: sharp, methodical, and confident. Assistant U.S. Attorney Nicholas Chiuchiolo declared, “They sold Frank for $175 million worth of lies.” His two-hour presentation painted Javice and Amar as master manipulators who built a castle of fake data to lure JPMorgan into a disastrous deal. The infamous spreadsheet “3.1.4” was described as the digital smoking gun—filled with names that didn’t belong to real students, let alone real users.

But then came defense attorney Jose Baez, and the tone shifted dramatically. Within minutes, the courtroom was hanging on his every word—not because of legalese, but because of Monopoly and moon landings.

Baez stood before the jury and declared:
“Yes, when you are the biggest bank in the world, the wealthiest bank in the world, 200 million ain’t nothing. They had monopoly money. They were playing with—she was playing with monopoly money. And, fun fact, who is the monopoly guy based on? JPMorgan himself.”​

The jury chuckled. Even Judge Hellerstein raised an eyebrow.

Baez turned the government’s narrative on its head. He told jurors that JPMorgan wasn’t duped—it was distracted, rushed, and maybe even a little sloppy. The deal wasn’t based on deception, he claimed, but on standard startup swagger. Everyone was moving fast. Everyone had numbers that shifted.
And when it came time to address testimony from key witness Houston Cowan, Baez delivered the day’s most cinematic line:
“Somebody’s going to come to him one day and say, ‘Houston, we have a problem.’”​

The courtroom stirred.

Throughout his summation, Baez hammered one message: this was a civil dispute, not a criminal case.
He closed with a plea:
“Charlie robs a bank, and what does she do? She gives the money right back to the bank. She puts her money from the deal in JPMorgan. That should speak volumes to you.”​

Baez even warned the jury, “If this case walks like a civil case, quacks like a civil case, it’s probably because that’s what it was.”​

Finally, Olivier Amar’s attorney, Matthew Menchel, took the stage. Calm and precise, he reminded jurors that no witness ever testified Amar lied. He accused the government of “lumping” Amar in with Javice to pad their case, despite a lack of direct evidence.

The day ended with the government’s rebuttal—and the jury soon to begin deliberations.

But on a day when the courtroom echoed with lines worthy of a Netflix docuseries, one thing was clear: this trial will be remembered for its theatrical final act.