As the trial of Charlie Javice continues, courtroom testimony focused on Google Drive metadata, student data negotiations, and JPMorgan’s due diligence—or lack thereof—before acquiring Frank, the college financial aid startup at the heart of the fraud allegations. While prosecutors argue that Javice inflated user numbers to secure a lucrative deal, the defense maintains that JPMorgan had access to all relevant data but failed to conduct a thorough review before finalizing the $175 million purchase.
Prosecution: Google Records Reveal Suspicious Edits
The government’s case relied heavily on testimony from Cory Gaddis, a records custodian at Google, who verified the authenticity of Google Drive files linked to Javice and her co-defendant, Olivier Amar. Prosecutors introduced spreadsheets allegedly containing manipulated student application figures, asserting that Javice and Amar deliberately overstated user engagement to mislead JPMorgan.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Micah Fergenson highlighted metadata showing document modifications and access patterns between the two defendants, arguing that this activity points to an effort to fabricate user data before presenting it to JPMorgan.
Defense: JPMorgan Had the Data, But Didn’t Verify It
However, Javice’s legal team pushed back, contending that while the metadata may show documents were edited, it does not prove fraud or deception. During cross-examination, defense attorney Eoin Beirne emphasized that Google’s metadata does not track the specific content of edits, only that documents were accessed or modified.
Further, the defense argued that JPMorgan received the data and had every opportunity to vet the figures before the acquisition. They stressed that the bank’s due diligence team, equipped with financial analysts and investigators, had full access to Frank’s user metrics and failed to identify any discrepancies—an oversight the defense argues is not fraud, but a failure on JPMorgan’s part.
Student Data Purchase: A Standard Business Inquiry?
In another key testimony, Tani Rae Ochs, a data sales representative at Exact Data, provided insight into a 2021 conversation with Javice and Amar about purchasing student data. Prosecutors used this testimony to suggest that Javice was seeking external data sources to pad user numbers, but under cross-examination, Ochs confirmed that no purchase was ever finalized.
This bolstered the defense’s argument that Javice never misrepresented actual users, but simply explored standard business strategies to enhance marketing outreach—a practice common in the industry and not indicative of fraud.
What’s Next in the Trial?
As the trial moves forward, Jennifer Wong, a former Frank employee, is set to testify, which may provide further insight into how the company internally managed its data and communicated with JPMorgan. The court is also expected to rule on whether prior witness statements—potentially reinforcing the government’s fraud claims—can be admitted.
With both sides digging into the role of JPMorgan’s own due diligence in the deal, the trial is shaping up to be a test of accountability: Was this a case of fraud, or a high-stakes acquisition where JPMorgan simply failed to do its homework?
The proceedings resume March 4, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Stay tuned for further updates.