Forensic Statement and Linguistic Analysis in Action: The JPMorgan vs. Charlie Javice Case

DDL Blog on FSLA in Courtrooms

In 2023, having purchased Charlie Javice’s company ‘Frank,’ JPMorgan filed a lawsuit alleging that Javice paid a data scientist professor $18,000 to contrive a list of more than 4 million fake student names in order to convince them of its value and to purchase the company for $175 million.

In the CBS News article online, it is reported that Alex Spiro, an attorney for Javice, denied the allegations in a statement emailed to CBS MoneyWatch.

Spiro said - "JPMorgan...knows what they filed is retaliatory and misleading,"

We note that ‘knows,’ indicates strong psychological commitment. This verb implies certainty without evidence and is often used to assert power or shift attention away from factual rebuttal.

In saying, ‘retaliatory and misleading’ we note the use of highly evaluative and emotional language. These are subjective characterisations and do not reflect objective rebuttal of the accusations.

Spiro’s priority is to use emotionally loaded terms in place of a factual reliable denial. We would question why he does not deny the allegations made against his client.

This tactic is often used to redirect focus rather that confront the specific allegations.

Spiro added, "They were provided all the data upfront for the purchase of Frank and Charlie Javice highlighted the restrictions placed by student privacy laws during due diligence."

To have provided ‘all the data,’ is absolute language which can be an indicator of deception. Here it can also be truthful as ‘all the data’ can include deceptive data which has been alleged and not denied.

To have provided this ‘upfront’ can imply compliance at the beginning but does not speak to data integrity, accuracy, or legality.

‘Charlie Javice highlighted’ demonstrates passivity in avoiding specifying to whom or how the data and restrictions were communicated. The vagueness around ‘highlighted’ lacks clarity, was it in writing? Verbally? Repeatedly? Did it meet legal disclosure standards? What was the method and scope?

Spiro further added, "When JPMorgan couldn't work around those privacy laws after the purchase of Frank, JPMC began twisting the facts to cover their tracks and are falsely accusing Charlie Javice to re-trade the deal."

‘Couldn’t work around’ can be suggestive of intent to bypass legal compliance whilst, ‘twisting the facts’ is again a subjective judgment instead of factual disproof.

‘Falsely accusing’ is indicative of an accusation of falsehood, but with no direct denial of the client's alleged actions.

The reason for JPMorgan to ‘falsely accuse’ was to re-trade the deal,” which introduces motive but not proof. This is a narrative shift to attacking JPMorgan’s motives rather than issue a direct denial.

We would consider asking the following Investigative Questions:

1. What specific data was provided “upfront”? Can you list and submit the documents?

2. Who exactly was informed about the student privacy law restrictions, and how? Was it verbal, written, or part of official due diligence documents?

3. What evidence do you have that JPMorgan is retaliating? Please provide dates and examples.

4. Do you deny that Charlie Javice misrepresented or falsified user data?

5. Did anyone attempt to “work around” privacy laws, and how? What does “work around” mean in this context?

There is no denial, only deflection. JPMorgan is not falsely accusing Javice to retrace the deal. She was deceptive. Her attorney is unable to say she told the truth. In addition, 're-trade' is minimising language.

Her attorney has a need to deflect and attack JPMorgan’s motives. We would always question why, particularly when this is not aligned with a denial.

We often find publications alleging individuals or organisations denying a specific accusation, but this frequently proves not to be the case. Publications can rush to a headline saying an allegation has been denied but in drilling down to what was actually said there is often no denial, just deflection.

If he can't say it, then we are unable to say it for him.

In March of this year Charlie Javice was found guilty of defrauding JPMorgan Chase in a $175m dollar deal by vastly overstating the company’s customer list. It was alleged that ‘Frank’ founded by Javice in 2016 to help users apply for college financial aid had more than 4 million customers when it had fewer than 300,000. Javice could be sentenced to decades in prison. The sentencing is expected to take place in August.

When truth is under pressure, language often reveals what’s being concealed.

Reference to written article: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/charlie-javice-frank-jpmorgan-chase-lawsuit-alleges-4-million-fake-customers/

All blog subjects are identified, validated and written by the DDL Team. See www.ddlltd.com for more on Deception Detection Lab Ltd.