In a closely watched federal trial that gripped Wall Street and Silicon Valley alike, a Manhattan jury on Friday found Charlie Javice and Olivier Amar guilty on all charges — including conspiracy, wire fraud, bank fraud, and securities fraud — in connection with the $175 million sale of their college financial aid startup, Frank, to JPMorgan Chase.
But beneath the headline verdict lies a thorny question that legal experts, defense attorneys, and observers across the startup world are now asking:
If JPMorgan didn’t really care about the data they were allegedly deceived about — is it fraud?
This is the heart of what may become a defining appeal in modern white-collar law.
The Jury Speaks — But the Fight Isn’t Over
After one day of deliberation, repeated notes, and deep confusion over conspiracy law, the jury returned a clean sweep of guilty verdicts for both defendants. Each juror confirmed their position in open court.
However, the legal battle is far from over.
Attorneys for Javice — led by the high-profile and battle-tested José Baez — are preparing a two-pronged assault: a Rule 29 motion for acquittal and a Rule 33 motion for a new trial. At the center of both will be a deceptively simple word: materiality.
Materiality: The Real Trial Behind the Trial
To convict someone of fraud, it’s not enough to prove they lied. The government must show that the lie mattered — that it was “material” to the decision being made by the victim.
In this case, the lie alleged by prosecutors was about user data. They claimed Javice and Amar faked numbers showing Frank had millions of student users to convince JPMorgan to buy the startup. But Baez flipped that narrative on its head.
“JPMorgan didn’t buy Frank because of the numbers. They bought it because of what they thought Frank could become,” Baez said in court. “If the bank didn’t care about the specific user data, then how could the data be material?”
That question has enormous implications. If accepted by a higher court, it could change how prosecutors pursue fraud cases involving startups, especially when buyers like JPMorgan fail to do thorough due diligence and later cry foul.
Baez Brings the Fire
José Baez is no stranger to high-stakes courtroom drama. Best known for securing acquittals of Dr. William Husel of 14 counts of murder, Casey Anthony and Aaron Hernandez, Baez brought his signature mix of swagger and precision to this case.
He repeatedly challenged the government’s portrayal of Javice as the architect of a scheme, arguing that there was no direct evidence that his client or her co-defendant created or manipulated the data JPMorgan relied on. In a heated exchange over an allegedly fraudulent presentation, Baez forced the court to acknowledge that authorship of a key document was disputed and unproven.
Baez also pushed back hard against the government’s strategy of lumping Javice’s alleged misconduct through the broad umbrella of “conspiracy.”
“Association is not guilt,” he told the jury.
Expect that line — and the distinction between actual knowledge and mere association — to anchor the upcoming appeal.
The Government’s View: A Message to the Market
For federal prosecutors, this case was about more than two startup execs. It was a statement to the entire venture-backed world: manipulating data in M&A deals will be treated as a criminal offense.
The government will maintain that deceit in billion-dollar boardrooms is no different than deceit on the street and that Fraud is fraud wherever it exists.
Prosecutors argued that even if JPMorgan didn’t ultimately rely on the numbers, the intent to mislead was enough to secure a conviction.
Latewr, the defense will formally challenge the verdict at a post-trial hearing on May 5, filing motions under Rules 29 and 33. Among their expected arguments:
- The evidence was insufficient to prove materiality.
- The jury was confused or misinstructed on the law.
- The verdict rested on disputed authorship and unproven conspiracy theories.
Meanwhile, sentencing is scheduled for July 23. Based on federal guidelines and the alleged loss to JPMorgan, both Javice and Amar could face 10–17 years in prison, though the judge has discretion.
If post-trial motions fail, the defense is expected to appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, setting up what could become a landmark ruling on materiality in complex corporate transactions.
The Frank case isn’t just a tech scandal or a white-collar crime story. It’s a test case for how far federal prosecutors can stretch fraud laws in the age of startup acquisitions, where projections often matter more than present facts, and investors routinely buy visions of the future rather than spreadsheets from the past.
If JPMorgan didn’t rely on Frank’s data — or didn’t care — can lying about it still be a federal crime?
The jury said yes.
But the courts may yet have the final word.
The post Conviction in the Frank Fraud Trial Raises Bigger Questions: What Did JPMorgan Really Care About? appeared first on ARTVOICE.