US
Sued Javice For Fooling JPMC Amar
Asked Judge Exchange Cash for Lien
But Now Denied
by
Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book
Substack
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
April 5 – JPMorgan
Chase bought a
start-up
called Frank,
which claimed
to have 4
million
students
signed up to
file their
FAFSA forms,
for $175
million. Then
Chase learned
Frank had only
300,000
customers.
On
April 4, 2023,
Frank founder
Ms. Charlie
Javice was
brought before
U.S. District
Court for the
Southern
District of
New York
Magistrate
Judge Barbara
C. Moses,
represented by
Quinn
Emanuel.
The
complaint
quotes Javice
messages with
the engineers
she hired to
create the
false data,
and to enter
in data she
bought on the
open market.
To one of
them, she is
quoted, "We
don't want to
end up in
orange
jumpsuits."
In
the tri-state,
it is
Westchester
County
Department of
Corrections in
Valhalla that
dresses its
inmates in
orange. MDC
Brooklyn uses
beige; Essex
County
Corrections
Facility in
New Jersey
uses yellow.
In any event,
white collar
defendant
Javice, who
took on an
appropriately
or
strategically
contrite look
on Worth
Street still
barricaded for
the nearby
state court
arraignment of
former
President
Donald Trump,
was freed on
$2 million
bond, travel
restricted to
SDNY and EDNY
and the
Southern
District of
Florida, where
she lives.
On May
18,
Javice was
indicted on
bank, wire and
securities
fraud counts,
and the case
assigned to District
Judge Alvin K.
Hellerstein.
In June
the US
prosecutors
sought to intervene in
and stay the
SEC's case
against
Javice. Inner
City Press
attended and
covered the oral
argument and
now first
reports that
Judge Lewis
J. Liman has
granted the
motions to
intervene and
stay, noting
among other
things that "Javice
will have
access to a
vast amount of
material
usable in the
civil case
through the
means of Rule
16 discovery
in the
criminal case.
That discovery
will include
virtually all
of the SEC’s
investigative
file. And it
will include
documents from
at least 30
different
third parties.
She has not
made a
convincing
case that she
needs more
document
discovery to
be prepared to
move quickly
in this case
when the
criminal case
is resolved
and the stay
is lifted."
The
(stayed) civil
case is
Securities and
Exchange
Commission v.
Javice et al,
23-cv-2795
(Liman)
On July
13, Javice and
her co-defendant
were arraigned,
and Judge
Hellerstein
asked why JPMC
didn't find
the fraud in
due diligence.
Inner
City Press was
there, thread:
All
rise!
Judge:
How do you
plead? Javice:
Not guilty.
Judge: How do
you pronounce
your name?
Javace?
Javice:
"Jah-veese."
Judge:
And Mr Amar?
Amar
(takes off
COVID mask
still required
in this
courtroom) Not
guilty
Judge
Hellerstein:
I'm puzzled,
why didn't JP
Morgan Chase
figure this
out during due
diligence?
AUSA: They
created fake
data. [Javice
is shaking her
head No, pink
cardigan tied
over her
shoulders]
Judge:
Defense wants
a delay?
Spiro: The US
is just
regurgitating
JPM Chase's
civil case.
AUSA: Mr Spiro
is confused
about Rule 16.
Judge: Can you
subpoena JPMC?
AUSA: We'd
have to see if
that complies
with Rule 17.
Judge to AUSA:
Why don't
*you* subpoena
JPMC?
AUSA:
We'll be
getting it.
Judge: We'll
meet in 30
days. August
15 at 11
am. I'll
sent a motion
schedule at
that time.
Adjourned.
On July
27, the
prosecutors
wrote it to
say they are
unavailable
on August
15, and that
the Court said
it would be
available
on September
20. But Javice
will not consent to exclude
Speedy Trial
Act time
until then.
Letter on
Patreon here.
On
August 23,
Inner City
Press was
there. Thread.
On November
7 Judge
Hellerstein
set a trial
date of
October 15,
2024.
In January, after
a
hearing Inner
City Press
attended, Javice
jaunty at the
defense table,
Judge
Hellerstein
docketed: "1.
JPMC is to
produce all
documents in
the possession
or control of
the custodians
identified in
Exhibit B to
the transcript
of argument,
in all forms
of media... 2.
JPMC shall
file by March
29, 2024 a
complete and
comprehensive
privilege log
consistent
with the
requirements
of Local Rule
26.2.
Defendants
shall submit
its objections
directly to
JPMC by April
30, 2024, and
enter into
conversations
with JPMC to
resolve issues
of privilege.
JPMC shall
file a
modified
privilege log,
reflecting the
results of
such
conversations,
by May 16,
2024. The
Court will
hear privilege
challenges,
via a
privilege
sampling
procedure
outlined in
the
transcript, on
May 30, 2024
at 2:30 pm...
Final
Pre-Trial
Conference to
be held, as
previously
set, on
October 15,
2024 at 11 a.m..
trial, October
28, 2024."
On March
1, 2024, co-defendant
Amar wrote to
Judge
Hellerstein
asking him to
order what
the
prosecutors
have refused:
an exchange of
frozen cash
for a
security
interest in Amar's
home. Amar
says the
prosecutors
told him to
get a HELOC -
he points to
the negative
publicity from
JPM Chase's
charges
against him.
On
April 4, Judge
Hellerstein
issued a
denial: "ORDER
DENYING
DEFENDANT
AMAR'S MOTION
FOR EXCHANGE
OF PROPERTY as
to Charlie
Javice,
Olivier Amar.
Defendant
Olivier Amar
seeks to
modify the
conditions of
the forfeiture
of his bank
account,
restrained
post-indictment
by the
government for
allegedly
containing
illegally
obtained
money. He asks
to substitute
a $250,000
equity
interest in
his home on
Long Island,
for $250,000
of the funds
restrained by
the government
pursuant to
the
Superseding
Indictment
filed on July
17, 2023, so
that he can
satisfy
outstanding
obligations
and care for
his family. He
states that he
has been
unable to
secure steady
employment or
a home equity
line of credit
because of his
pending
criminal
charges. The
government
opposes on two
grounds, the
absence of
statutory
jurisdiction
of the court,
and prejudice
to the
government
from an
unequal
exchange,
exchanging a
property
encumbered by
a mortgage, a
contractor's
lien, a
bailbondsman's
security, and
his wife's
joint
interest, for
cash. Unlike
the statute
governing
pre-indictment
property
preservation,
the applicable
statute does
not authorize
me to
reevaluate a
post-indictment
restraint
because of a
defendant's
need. Compare
21 U.S.C.
853(e)(1)(B)
(court has
post-indictment
authority to
order the
restraint of
assets if the
property
"would, in the
event of
conviction, be
subject to
forfeiture
under this
section");
with 21 U.S.C.
§ 853(e)(1)(A)
(court has
pre-indictment
authority to
order the
restraint of
assets where
"the need to
preserve the
availability
of the
property...
outweighs the
hardship on
any party
against whom
the order is
to be
entered").
There is one
exception to
preserve a
defendant's
Sixth
Amendment
right to be
defended by
counsel; where
a defendant
seeks
restrained
assets in
order to pay
the counsel of
his choice.
See United
States v.
Bonventre, 720
F.3d 126,
130-32 (2d
Cir. 2013).
Even if I had
discretion and
authority, I
would decline
to grant
defendant's
motion. As the
government
persuasively
demonstrates,
the risks
inherent in
the
realization of
the $250,000
interest in
Defendant's
illiquid and
encumbered
property
prejudices the
interest of
the
government.
Defendant
Amar's motion
is denied."
This case is
US v. Javice,
et al., 23-cr-251
(Hellerstein)
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2024 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|