A lawyer for Charlie Javice told jurors JPMorgan Chase didn’t do enough to vet her startup.
Prosecutors say Javice defrauded JPMorgan Chase before it bought Frank.
In openings, prosecutors painted Javice as a fraud. Her lawyer called her an “incredible woman.”
Prosecutors told a federal jury Thursday that Frank founder Charlie Javice and her second in command Oliver Amar earned millions by defrauding JPMorgan Chase.
The bank purchased the company in 2021 for $175 million, after the former executives said Frank had more than 4 million users.
Prosecutors say that those numbers were dramatically inflated.
“They had nothing close to that,” US Attorney Rushmi Bhaskaran said on Thursday. “Through these lies, the defendants became multimillionaires.”
The duo “made up fake data” to bolster their user base and then tried to cover it up, Bhaskaran said.
Attorneys for Javice and Amar, who were charged separately, painted a different picture.
Jose Baez, one of Javice’s attorneys, said JPMorgan didn’t do enough due diligence before purchasing Frank, calling it a “business deal that went wrong.”
He called Javice an “incredible young woman” who, at age 28, was savvy enough to secure a one-on-one meeting with Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan’s CEO.
Baez added that the acquisition was more about acquiring Javice herself than Frank’s supposed 4 million users.
“They saw something in Charlie, a young, female CEO breaking the glass ceiling,” Baez said. “That’s what JPMorgan negotiated for, and that’s what they got.”
Meanwhile, Amar’s attorney, Jonathan Cogan, referred to his client as an “innocent man” who was dragged into his boss’s problems after the prosecution “lumped them together.”
Amar, who was stoic through much of the proceedings, nodded subtly while Cogan reminded the jury that he is innocent until proven guilty.
“Sometimes, our government gets it wrong,” Cogan said. “Sometimes, prosecutors can be overzealous. Sometimes, innocent people get swept up.”
Opening statements in the lower Manhattan trial came after nearly two days of jury selection.
Before being selected, jurors were questioned at hushed sidebars about their personal lives, including whether they had ever worked in finance, been a victim of fraud, or had close personal or business relationships with people like Dimon.
Some prospective jurors were excused after sharing that they worked for JPMorgan or other banks. Another was excused after saying she enjoyed watching shows about scams and thinking about the psychology that motivates fraudsters.
