Former federal inmate here who was recently released from prison a month ago today (I did 18 months): The big deal here was the loss amount, which can be construed any number of ways whether we like it or not. This will jack up the points and tilt the scale for the sentencing guidelines, and believe me they are archaic.

After all is said and done, Charlie Javice will be hanging out at a prison camp—probably down there with Holmes and Maxwell, because it's cushy—and do no more than 4 years on the 7 assuming she completes all her programming requirements.

>> A prosecutor, Micah Fergenson, though, said JPMorgan “didn’t get a functioning business” in exchange for its investment. “They acquired a crime scene.”

I do not understand how an acquisition this big got thru due diligence without noticing all the fake users. Anyone in corporate M&A know if it is normal to spend this much money without inspecting the goods? Seems like the most basic of OLAP queries and two days of effort would reveal very suspicious userbase.

I wonder what really happened here:

"The judge said Javice had assembled a “very powerful list” of her charitable acts, which included organizing soup kitchens for the homeless when she was 7 years old and designing career programs for formerly incarcerated women."

At least for all my classmates doing the college application process, claims like that were almost always wild exaggerations of what we really did.

Does anybody have the number for how much she will likely make off with ultimately ten years from now once everything settles?

My favorite thing about this case is how she bragged to her lead engineer she wouldn't go to prison, "“Don’t worry — I don’t want to end up in an orange jumpsuit" when she was trying to convince the engineer to fabricate their user data.

From the complaint:

> In particular, CC-1 and JAVICE asked Engineer-1 to supplement a list of Frank’s website visitors with additional data fields containing synthetic data.

> Engineer-1 was uncomfortable with the request and stated, in sum and substance, “I don’t want to do anything illegal.” JAVICE and CC-1 claimed to Engineer-1 that it was legal. JAVICE stated to Engineer-1, in sum and substance, “We don’t want to end up in orange jumpsuits.” Engineer-1 declined the request from JAVICE and CC-1.

> shortly after Engineer-1 had declined the request to create a synthetic data set—CHARLIE JAVICE, the defendant, contacted Scientist-1 and asked him to create the synthetic data set. In JAVICE’s communications with Scientist-1, she falsely represented that the data she provided to Scientist-1 was a random sample of a much larger database of Frank users.

> Also on or about August 3, 2021, JAVICE forwarded to Scientist-1 the Access Link Email sent to her by Engineer-1. JAVICE wrote, “here is the link. will share credentials offline.” Based on Scientist-1’s communications with JAVICE, Scientist-1 understood that the data available via the Access Link Email—a data set of approximately 142,000 people—was a random sample of a larger database which contained data for approximately 4 million people.

source: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1577861...

It's interesting how nobody talks about due-diligence being completely broken. We raised $$$ from many VCs and the DD for some of them was crazy: line item by line item with calls to customers etc. Tech folks were on phone with me and had to explain them stuff step by step, revealing a lot of confidential recipes. Also did this for bigger customers. And the $175M deal.. isn't there an earnout? Like $10M cash now, 1/4*$175 wired on 1yr cliff, and then the rest over 4 years if some milestones are hit? The whole thing looks weird.

Is it correct that Charlie Javice is keeping the majority of the profits she made from the sale of Frank?

If so, it's quite possible she considers the profit well worth the penalty.

It's interesting to me that fraud appears to be a crime again, with Theranos and now this, when it was going on for so long and so obviously, and no one seemed to care when people were lying and frauding as long as it went on long enough for them to make a profit.

At an investor event, a desperate journalist was running around the room asking people their age. He ended up at our table, with a drink in hand, and a defeated look on his face. He had given up.

We talked a bit, and he asked me, "are you under 30?" I answered "No. But this guy is." I pointed at the 28 year old cofounder of the start up I was part off. Before the evening was over, my colleague made it to the list of forbes 30 under 30.

I see the string of “30 Under 30” being a statistically valid predictor of future likelihood to go to prison continues. These lists feed on the narcissistic tendencies of grifters who are desperate to get on the list and then tell you about it on LinkedIn.

These lists have such a bad reputation these days that legit top folks are asking their PR people to keep the off!

Another “30 under 30” grifter goes to jail.

Separately, I hope a few folks at JPMC got fired over this. Even the most basic of due diligence should have caught this.

> In seeking a 12-year prison sentence for Javice, prosecutors cited a 2022 text Javice sent to a colleague in which she called it “ridiculous” that Holmes got over 11 years in prison.

This seems utterly irrelevant to the sentencing, but what do I know.

> Javice appeared regularly on cable news programs to boost Frank’s profile, also once appearing on Forbes’ “30 Under 30” list.

...alongside other scrupulous business luminaries like Sam Bankman Fried, Shkreli and Holmes.

He broke an unwritten, cardinal rule, which is to never steal from the rich.

Another Forbes 30 under 30!

Has anyoine from JPMC gone to prison for 2008 yet?

Sentenced to a really, really expensive purchase of Trump shitcoin. I'm sure he can find something to like about someone who made a fool of JPMorgan.

Lol the biggest loser here is the ad tech company that was used to validate the entirely generated emails and somehow gave JPMC the belief that the emails matched in the DB. Get fucking rekt.

Definitely a good candidate for a presidential pardon if she makes the right donations.