摩根大通(JP Morgan Chase)發(fā)起的新訴訟稱,摩根大通花費(fèi)數(shù)億美元收購(gòu)的一家金融科技公司可能建立在大量的謊言之上。如果這家投行說(shuō)的是真的,那么這一切問(wèn)題就始于一張寫給一位紐約市地區(qū)數(shù)據(jù)科學(xué)教授的1.8萬(wàn)美元支票。
2022年12月22日,摩根大通起訴了助學(xué)金幫助平臺(tái)Frank的千禧一代創(chuàng)始人查理·賈維斯及其首席增長(zhǎng)官奧利維爾·阿馬爾,稱這兩位偽造了約400萬(wàn)個(gè)不存在的賬戶,并說(shuō)這些用戶都在使用Frank的服務(wù)。摩根大通于2021年9月以1.75億美元收購(gòu)了這家公司。
這家投行在1月12日,也就是提出訴訟數(shù)周后關(guān)閉了Frank。摩根大通在訴訟中依然指出,盡管其一直認(rèn)為收購(gòu)的是一家“深度參與大學(xué)生市場(chǎng)領(lǐng)域”、有著400多萬(wàn)用戶的公司,但它最終獲得的卻是一張“不到30萬(wàn)”賬戶的客戶清單。
賈維斯的律師亞歷克斯·斯皮羅并未回復(fù)《財(cái)富》雜志的置評(píng)請(qǐng)求,但向其他新聞媒體否認(rèn)了針對(duì)賈維斯的指控。彭博社(Bloomberg)稱,賈維斯在2022年12月起訴摩根大通,稱該銀行以調(diào)查Frank為由,炒了她的魷魚。斯皮羅對(duì)媒體說(shuō),該投行的訴訟案“只不過(guò)是個(gè)幌子罷了”。《財(cái)富》雜志未能聯(lián)系上阿馬爾的代理律師。
摩根大通表示,當(dāng)其于2021年與賈維斯首次討論這一收購(gòu)時(shí),在摩根大通的眼里,F(xiàn)rank是一家擁有“近400萬(wàn)未得到該銀行服務(wù)的客戶賬戶”。這家投行稱,在向其提交Frank的官方客戶賬戶數(shù)據(jù)盡職調(diào)查之前,為了彌補(bǔ)賬戶數(shù)量的差距,賈維斯與阿馬爾最初求助了該平臺(tái)的一位匿名工程主任,來(lái)創(chuàng)建“合成數(shù)據(jù)”,也就是計(jì)算機(jī)算法生成的假客戶信息。
摩根大通的訴訟指出,這位工程師對(duì)此較為反感,詢問(wèn)“這一要求是否合法”,并最終拒絕了其要求,因此,賈維斯和阿馬爾據(jù)稱向外部資源進(jìn)行了求助,訴訟只是含糊地將其描述為“紐約市地區(qū)大學(xué)的一位數(shù)據(jù)學(xué)教授”。
訴訟稱,這位教授同意了,而且愿意向賈維斯和阿馬爾的數(shù)據(jù)問(wèn)題提供“創(chuàng)造性的解決方案”。訴訟顯示,雙方為此而交換了大量的電子郵件。
“我是否應(yīng)該嘗試虛構(gòu)地址?”
摩根大通的訴訟顯示,這位數(shù)據(jù)科學(xué)教授的任務(wù)是為Frank創(chuàng)造近430萬(wàn)客戶的數(shù)據(jù),包括姓名、郵件和生日,而且教授和賈維斯據(jù)稱從一開始便清楚地意識(shí)到,他們完全了解這些信息都將是虛構(gòu)的。
當(dāng)創(chuàng)建新客戶姓名時(shí),這位教授據(jù)稱通過(guò)電子郵件向賈維斯發(fā)送了一個(gè)建議模型,該模型能夠通過(guò)單獨(dú)測(cè)試名和姓來(lái)剔除真實(shí)存在的姓名,從而“確保所有這些選取姓名都不是真實(shí)的?!?/p>
在另一封電子郵件里,這位教授據(jù)稱發(fā)現(xiàn)了眾多賬戶的個(gè)人信息歷史都是一樣的,包括重復(fù)率異常之高的高中生姓名和家鄉(xiāng)。這位教授寫道:“如果[由他]審計(jì),這類清單[在他]看起來(lái)十分可疑。”訴訟指出,在創(chuàng)建電話號(hào)碼方面,賈維斯據(jù)稱曾經(jīng)告訴教授,即便賬戶電話號(hào)碼出現(xiàn)一定的重復(fù)也是可以接受的,只要重復(fù)率不超過(guò)“5%-7%”就行。
訴訟稱,事實(shí)證明,考慮到創(chuàng)建獨(dú)特地址的復(fù)雜性,實(shí)際地址成為了最大的問(wèn)題之一。據(jù)稱這位教授曾經(jīng)一度告訴賈維斯,他們“在地址方面耗費(fèi)了過(guò)多的時(shí)間”。在這一流程的初期,教授據(jù)稱對(duì)賈維斯說(shuō),他在尋找可信的地址方面遇到了問(wèn)題。他問(wèn):“我是否應(yīng)該嘗試來(lái)虛構(gòu)地址?”賈維斯回答道:“只要?jiǎng)e出現(xiàn)美國(guó)不存在的街道名就行。”
摩根大通的訴訟表示,在這個(gè)問(wèn)題上,這位數(shù)據(jù)科學(xué)教授給賈維斯寄了一張1.33萬(wàn)美元的賬單。然而,其工作總結(jié)據(jù)稱出了問(wèn)題,因?yàn)榻淌趽?jù)稱記下了自己幫助創(chuàng)建的所有偽造信息的單個(gè)費(fèi)用項(xiàng)目。訴訟稱,賈維斯“立即”要求教授重做這份賬單,而且只寫一項(xiàng)費(fèi)用——“數(shù)據(jù)分析”,同時(shí)承諾向其發(fā)放獎(jiǎng)金,并將賬單額度提升至1.8萬(wàn)美元。然后,教授據(jù)稱答應(yīng)了這一要求。
摩根大通的發(fā)言人巴勃羅·羅德里格斯告訴《財(cái)富》雜志,摩根大通與賈維斯之間的爭(zhēng)議只能通過(guò)法院來(lái)解決。
他說(shuō):“我們?cè)谠V狀中列出了我們起訴賈維斯女士和阿馬爾先生的法律要求,以及關(guān)鍵事實(shí)。任何爭(zhēng)議都將通過(guò)法律程序解決?!保ㄘ?cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:馮豐
審校:夏林
摩根大通(JP Morgan Chase)發(fā)起的新訴訟稱,摩根大通花費(fèi)數(shù)億美元收購(gòu)的一家金融科技公司可能建立在大量的謊言之上。如果這家投行說(shuō)的是真的,那么這一切問(wèn)題就始于一張寫給一位紐約市地區(qū)數(shù)據(jù)科學(xué)教授的1.8萬(wàn)美元支票。
2022年12月22日,摩根大通起訴了助學(xué)金幫助平臺(tái)Frank的千禧一代創(chuàng)始人查理·賈維斯及其首席增長(zhǎng)官奧利維爾·阿馬爾,稱這兩位偽造了約400萬(wàn)個(gè)不存在的賬戶,并說(shuō)這些用戶都在使用Frank的服務(wù)。摩根大通于2021年9月以1.75億美元收購(gòu)了這家公司。
這家投行在1月12日,也就是提出訴訟數(shù)周后關(guān)閉了Frank。摩根大通在訴訟中依然指出,盡管其一直認(rèn)為收購(gòu)的是一家“深度參與大學(xué)生市場(chǎng)領(lǐng)域”、有著400多萬(wàn)用戶的公司,但它最終獲得的卻是一張“不到30萬(wàn)”賬戶的客戶清單。
賈維斯的律師亞歷克斯·斯皮羅并未回復(fù)《財(cái)富》雜志的置評(píng)請(qǐng)求,但向其他新聞媒體否認(rèn)了針對(duì)賈維斯的指控。彭博社(Bloomberg)稱,賈維斯在2022年12月起訴摩根大通,稱該銀行以調(diào)查Frank為由,炒了她的魷魚。斯皮羅對(duì)媒體說(shuō),該投行的訴訟案“只不過(guò)是個(gè)幌子罷了”?!敦?cái)富》雜志未能聯(lián)系上阿馬爾的代理律師。
摩根大通表示,當(dāng)其于2021年與賈維斯首次討論這一收購(gòu)時(shí),在摩根大通的眼里,F(xiàn)rank是一家擁有“近400萬(wàn)未得到該銀行服務(wù)的客戶賬戶”。這家投行稱,在向其提交Frank的官方客戶賬戶數(shù)據(jù)盡職調(diào)查之前,為了彌補(bǔ)賬戶數(shù)量的差距,賈維斯與阿馬爾最初求助了該平臺(tái)的一位匿名工程主任,來(lái)創(chuàng)建“合成數(shù)據(jù)”,也就是計(jì)算機(jī)算法生成的假客戶信息。
摩根大通的訴訟指出,這位工程師對(duì)此較為反感,詢問(wèn)“這一要求是否合法”,并最終拒絕了其要求,因此,賈維斯和阿馬爾據(jù)稱向外部資源進(jìn)行了求助,訴訟只是含糊地將其描述為“紐約市地區(qū)大學(xué)的一位數(shù)據(jù)學(xué)教授”。
訴訟稱,這位教授同意了,而且愿意向賈維斯和阿馬爾的數(shù)據(jù)問(wèn)題提供“創(chuàng)造性的解決方案”。訴訟顯示,雙方為此而交換了大量的電子郵件。
“我是否應(yīng)該嘗試虛構(gòu)地址?”
摩根大通的訴訟顯示,這位數(shù)據(jù)科學(xué)教授的任務(wù)是為Frank創(chuàng)造近430萬(wàn)客戶的數(shù)據(jù),包括姓名、郵件和生日,而且教授和賈維斯據(jù)稱從一開始便清楚地意識(shí)到,他們完全了解這些信息都將是虛構(gòu)的。
當(dāng)創(chuàng)建新客戶姓名時(shí),這位教授據(jù)稱通過(guò)電子郵件向賈維斯發(fā)送了一個(gè)建議模型,該模型能夠通過(guò)單獨(dú)測(cè)試名和姓來(lái)剔除真實(shí)存在的姓名,從而“確保所有這些選取姓名都不是真實(shí)的?!?/p>
在另一封電子郵件里,這位教授據(jù)稱發(fā)現(xiàn)了眾多賬戶的個(gè)人信息歷史都是一樣的,包括重復(fù)率異常之高的高中生姓名和家鄉(xiāng)。這位教授寫道:“如果[由他]審計(jì),這類清單[在他]看起來(lái)十分可疑?!痹V訟指出,在創(chuàng)建電話號(hào)碼方面,賈維斯據(jù)稱曾經(jīng)告訴教授,即便賬戶電話號(hào)碼出現(xiàn)一定的重復(fù)也是可以接受的,只要重復(fù)率不超過(guò)“5%-7%”就行。
訴訟稱,事實(shí)證明,考慮到創(chuàng)建獨(dú)特地址的復(fù)雜性,實(shí)際地址成為了最大的問(wèn)題之一。據(jù)稱這位教授曾經(jīng)一度告訴賈維斯,他們“在地址方面耗費(fèi)了過(guò)多的時(shí)間”。在這一流程的初期,教授據(jù)稱對(duì)賈維斯說(shuō),他在尋找可信的地址方面遇到了問(wèn)題。他問(wèn):“我是否應(yīng)該嘗試來(lái)虛構(gòu)地址?”賈維斯回答道:“只要?jiǎng)e出現(xiàn)美國(guó)不存在的街道名就行?!?/p>
摩根大通的訴訟表示,在這個(gè)問(wèn)題上,這位數(shù)據(jù)科學(xué)教授給賈維斯寄了一張1.33萬(wàn)美元的賬單。然而,其工作總結(jié)據(jù)稱出了問(wèn)題,因?yàn)榻淌趽?jù)稱記下了自己幫助創(chuàng)建的所有偽造信息的單個(gè)費(fèi)用項(xiàng)目。訴訟稱,賈維斯“立即”要求教授重做這份賬單,而且只寫一項(xiàng)費(fèi)用——“數(shù)據(jù)分析”,同時(shí)承諾向其發(fā)放獎(jiǎng)金,并將賬單額度提升至1.8萬(wàn)美元。然后,教授據(jù)稱答應(yīng)了這一要求。
摩根大通的發(fā)言人巴勃羅·羅德里格斯告訴《財(cái)富》雜志,摩根大通與賈維斯之間的爭(zhēng)議只能通過(guò)法院來(lái)解決。
他說(shuō):“我們?cè)谠V狀中列出了我們起訴賈維斯女士和阿馬爾先生的法律要求,以及關(guān)鍵事實(shí)。任何爭(zhēng)議都將通過(guò)法律程序解決?!保ㄘ?cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:馮豐
審校:夏林
A fintech startup bought by JP Morgan Chase for millions may have been built on a bed of lies, according to a new lawsuit filed by JP Morgan. And if the investment bank is to be believed, it all went wrong with an $18,000 check to a New York City-area data science professor.
On Dec. 22, 2022, JP Morgan filed a lawsuit against Charlie Javice, the millennial founder of student aid facilitating platform Frank, and the company’s chief growth officer Olivier Amar, claiming the pair fabricated around 4 million nonexistent accounts that they said used their service, which JP Morgan purchased for $175 million in Sep. 2021.
The investment bank shut down Frank on January 12, weeks after the suit was first filed. The bank maintains in its lawsuit that while it had been expecting to purchase a business “deeply engaged with the college-aged market segment” with over 4 million users, what it actually received was a customer list containing “no more than 300,000” accounts.
Alex Spiro, Javice’s legal representation, did not reply to Fortune’s request for comment, but has denied the allegations against her to other news outlets. Javice sued JP Morgan in December 2022 alleging the bank used an investigation into Frank as an excuse to fire her from her job with the company, Bloomberg reported. Spiro told the outlet that the bank’s lawsuit was “nothing but a cover.” Fortune was not able to reach representation for Amar.
JP Morgan is alleging that in 2021, when the bank and Javice first discussed an acquisition, Frank was “almost 4 million customer accounts short of its representations” to the bank. To make up for the deficit before presenting Frank’s official customer account data to JP Morgan for due diligence, the bank claims that Javice and Amar turned first to the platform’s unnamed director of engineering to create “synthetic data”—fake customer information generated by computer algorithms.
According to JP Morgan’s lawsuit, the engineer felt uncomfortable, asking “whether the request was legal” and eventually declined, so Javice and Amar allegedly resorted to an external source, referred to merely as a “data science professor at a New York City area college” in the lawsuit.
The professor allegedly agreed, according to the suit, and was willing to provide “creative solutions” to Javice and Amar’s data problems. What ensued, according to the lawsuit, was an extraordinary series of email exchanges.
“Should I attempt to fabricate them?”
The data science professor was tasked with creating data for nearly 4.3 million customers for Frank, including names, emails, and birthdays, according to JP Morgan’s lawsuit, and it was allegedly made clear from the onset that the professor and Javice were both fully aware that the information would be fictitious.
When crafting the new customers’ names, the professor allegedly emailed Javice with a proposed model to weed out real people’s names by testing first and last names independently, to “ensure none of the sampled names are real.”
In another email, the professor allegedly noted how many of the accounts’ personal information histories were the same, including an unnatural rate of recurrence for high school names and hometowns. Such a list “would look fishy to [him] if [he] were to audit it,” the professor wrote. When it came to creating phone numbers, Javice allegedly told the professor some duplicated numbers among the accounts was acceptable, as long as no more “than 5%-7%” were copies, according to the suit.
Physical addresses proved to be one of the biggest sticking points due to the complexity of creating unique addresses, according to the lawsuit, with the professor at one point allegedly telling Javice they were “wasting too much time on the address thing.” Early on in the process, the professor allegedly told Javice he was having trouble finding believable addresses. “Should I attempt to fabricate them?” he asked, to which Javice answered: “I just wouldn’t want the street to not exist in the state.”
For his troubles, the data science professor sent Javice a $13,300 invoice, according to JP Morgan’s lawsuit. But the summary of his work allegedly proved problematic, as the professor had allegedly written down individual line items of each fake information field he had helped create. Javice “immediately” asked the professor to redo the invoice with a single line reading “data analysis,” promising him a bigger bonus and increasing the invoice to $18,000, according to the lawsuit, and the professor then allegedly complied with the request.
Pablo Rodriguez, a JP Morgan spokesperson, told Fortune that the disputes between the bank and Javice are set to be ironed out in court.
“Our legal claims against Ms. Javice and Mr. Amar are set out in our complaint, along with the key facts. Any dispute will be resolved through the legal process,” he said.