Charlie Javice, founder of the fintech startup Frank, was sentenced to over seven years in prison for orchestrating a large-scale fraud to sell her company to JPMorgan Chase for $175 million, falsely inflating its customer base from fewer than 300,000 to over 4 million.

Javice expressed remorse and asked for forgiveness, while the judge emphasized her case as a deterrent to others, highlighting the seriousness of her deception.

Prosecutors argued her actions were driven by greed and misled JPMorgan into overpaying for a company that was not as valuable as claimed.

Defense lawyers contended that JPMorgan knew what it was buying and that Frank's technology was legitimate, criticizing the severity of the sentence and emphasizing Javice's remorse and personal circumstances.

The judge, Alvin Hellerstein, denied a request to postpone sentencing due to health issues and is considering whether Javice can remain free while appealing, with a decision expected during the hearing.

The case underscores ongoing debates about how to quantify 'loss' in financial fraud, whether focusing solely on financial damage or including the value of the company's assets and potential.

Javice has hired an appeals attorney to challenge the trial's fairness, particularly criticizing the joint trial with her co-defendant, Olivier Amar.

Her defense compared her to Elizabeth Holmes, arguing her company was real and functional, unlike Holmes' Theranos, which was a fraudulent operation.

Defense also argued that Frank had genuine value despite limited user data and that JPMorgan rushed into the acquisition out of competitive fears.

Her lawyer claimed Frank's software was functional and contrasted her case with Theranos, suggesting JPMorgan's hurried purchase was driven by fear of missing out.

Judge Hellerstein described Javice's crime as 'biblical' and emphasized the gravity of her fraud, which he compared to unjust weights and measures.

Despite her charitable background and support from community figures, the judge highlighted the severity of the crime, noting JPMorgan's acquisition as a 'crime scene'.

The case highlights failures in due diligence during the JPMorgan-Frank acquisition, with over 300 bankers unaware of the false user data until a year after the deal.