<address id="dtptn"></address>

<form id="dtptn"><listing id="dtptn"><meter id="dtptn"></meter></listing></form>

<form id="dtptn"><nobr id="dtptn"></nobr></form>
      <sub id="dtptn"><listing id="dtptn"></listing></sub>

      <noframes id="dtptn">
        <noframes id="dtptn"><form id="dtptn"><th id="dtptn"></th></form>

        立即打開
        摩根大通起訴Frank公司造假

        摩根大通起訴Frank公司造假

        Tristan Bove 2023-01-17
        摩根大通花費數億美元收購的一家金融科技公司可能建立在大量的謊言之上。

        2022年4月27日,舉著標語的激進人士在美國華盛頓特區白宮附近的賓夕法尼亞大街和17街參加“學生貸款減免”(Student Loan Forgiveness)集會。圖片來源:ANNA MONEYMAKER/GETTY IMAGES

        摩根大通(JP Morgan Chase)發起的新訴訟稱,摩根大通花費數億美元收購的一家金融科技公司可能建立在大量的謊言之上。如果這家投行說的是真的,那么這一切問題就始于一張寫給一位紐約市地區數據科學教授的1.8萬美元支票。

        2022年12月22日,摩根大通起訴了助學金幫助平臺Frank的千禧一代創始人查理·賈維斯及其首席增長官奧利維爾·阿馬爾,稱這兩位偽造了約400萬個不存在的賬戶,并說這些用戶都在使用Frank的服務。摩根大通于2021年9月以1.75億美元收購了這家公司。

        這家投行在1月12日,也就是提出訴訟數周后關閉了Frank。摩根大通在訴訟中依然指出,盡管其一直認為收購的是一家“深度參與大學生市場領域”、有著400多萬用戶的公司,但它最終獲得的卻是一張“不到30萬”賬戶的客戶清單。

        賈維斯的律師亞歷克斯·斯皮羅并未回復《財富》雜志的置評請求,但向其他新聞媒體否認了針對賈維斯的指控。彭博社(Bloomberg)稱,賈維斯在2022年12月起訴摩根大通,稱該銀行以調查Frank為由,炒了她的魷魚。斯皮羅對媒體說,該投行的訴訟案“只不過是個幌子罷了”?!敦敻弧冯s志未能聯系上阿馬爾的代理律師。

        摩根大通表示,當其于2021年與賈維斯首次討論這一收購時,在摩根大通的眼里,Frank是一家擁有“近400萬未得到該銀行服務的客戶賬戶”。這家投行稱,在向其提交Frank的官方客戶賬戶數據盡職調查之前,為了彌補賬戶數量的差距,賈維斯與阿馬爾最初求助了該平臺的一位匿名工程主任,來創建“合成數據”,也就是計算機算法生成的假客戶信息。

        摩根大通的訴訟指出,這位工程師對此較為反感,詢問“這一要求是否合法”,并最終拒絕了其要求,因此,賈維斯和阿馬爾據稱向外部資源進行了求助,訴訟只是含糊地將其描述為“紐約市地區大學的一位數據學教授”。

        訴訟稱,這位教授同意了,而且愿意向賈維斯和阿馬爾的數據問題提供“創造性的解決方案”。訴訟顯示,雙方為此而交換了大量的電子郵件。

        “我是否應該嘗試虛構地址?”

        摩根大通的訴訟顯示,這位數據科學教授的任務是為Frank創造近430萬客戶的數據,包括姓名、郵件和生日,而且教授和賈維斯據稱從一開始便清楚地意識到,他們完全了解這些信息都將是虛構的。

        當創建新客戶姓名時,這位教授據稱通過電子郵件向賈維斯發送了一個建議模型,該模型能夠通過單獨測試名和姓來剔除真實存在的姓名,從而“確保所有這些選取姓名都不是真實的?!?/p>

        在另一封電子郵件里,這位教授據稱發現了眾多賬戶的個人信息歷史都是一樣的,包括重復率異常之高的高中生姓名和家鄉。這位教授寫道:“如果[由他]審計,這類清單[在他]看起來十分可疑?!痹V訟指出,在創建電話號碼方面,賈維斯據稱曾經告訴教授,即便賬戶電話號碼出現一定的重復也是可以接受的,只要重復率不超過“5%-7%”就行。

        訴訟稱,事實證明,考慮到創建獨特地址的復雜性,實際地址成為了最大的問題之一。據稱這位教授曾經一度告訴賈維斯,他們“在地址方面耗費了過多的時間”。在這一流程的初期,教授據稱對賈維斯說,他在尋找可信的地址方面遇到了問題。他問:“我是否應該嘗試來虛構地址?”賈維斯回答道:“只要別出現美國不存在的街道名就行?!?/p>

        摩根大通的訴訟表示,在這個問題上,這位數據科學教授給賈維斯寄了一張1.33萬美元的賬單。然而,其工作總結據稱出了問題,因為教授據稱記下了自己幫助創建的所有偽造信息的單個費用項目。訴訟稱,賈維斯“立即”要求教授重做這份賬單,而且只寫一項費用——“數據分析”,同時承諾向其發放獎金,并將賬單額度提升至1.8萬美元。然后,教授據稱答應了這一要求。

        摩根大通的發言人巴勃羅·羅德里格斯告訴《財富》雜志,摩根大通與賈維斯之間的爭議只能通過法院來解決。

        他說:“我們在訴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,以及關鍵事實。任何爭議都將通過法律程序解決?!保ㄘ敻恢形木W)

        譯者:馮豐

        審校:夏林

        摩根大通(JP Morgan Chase)發起的新訴訟稱,摩根大通花費數億美元收購的一家金融科技公司可能建立在大量的謊言之上。如果這家投行說的是真的,那么這一切問題就始于一張寫給一位紐約市地區數據科學教授的1.8萬美元支票。

        2022年12月22日,摩根大通起訴了助學金幫助平臺Frank的千禧一代創始人查理·賈維斯及其首席增長官奧利維爾·阿馬爾,稱這兩位偽造了約400萬個不存在的賬戶,并說這些用戶都在使用Frank的服務。摩根大通于2021年9月以1.75億美元收購了這家公司。

        這家投行在1月12日,也就是提出訴訟數周后關閉了Frank。摩根大通在訴訟中依然指出,盡管其一直認為收購的是一家“深度參與大學生市場領域”、有著400多萬用戶的公司,但它最終獲得的卻是一張“不到30萬”賬戶的客戶清單。

        賈維斯的律師亞歷克斯·斯皮羅并未回復《財富》雜志的置評請求,但向其他新聞媒體否認了針對賈維斯的指控。彭博社(Bloomberg)稱,賈維斯在2022年12月起訴摩根大通,稱該銀行以調查Frank為由,炒了她的魷魚。斯皮羅對媒體說,該投行的訴訟案“只不過是個幌子罷了”?!敦敻弧冯s志未能聯系上阿馬爾的代理律師。

        摩根大通表示,當其于2021年與賈維斯首次討論這一收購時,在摩根大通的眼里,Frank是一家擁有“近400萬未得到該銀行服務的客戶賬戶”。這家投行稱,在向其提交Frank的官方客戶賬戶數據盡職調查之前,為了彌補賬戶數量的差距,賈維斯與阿馬爾最初求助了該平臺的一位匿名工程主任,來創建“合成數據”,也就是計算機算法生成的假客戶信息。

        摩根大通的訴訟指出,這位工程師對此較為反感,詢問“這一要求是否合法”,并最終拒絕了其要求,因此,賈維斯和阿馬爾據稱向外部資源進行了求助,訴訟只是含糊地將其描述為“紐約市地區大學的一位數據學教授”。

        訴訟稱,這位教授同意了,而且愿意向賈維斯和阿馬爾的數據問題提供“創造性的解決方案”。訴訟顯示,雙方為此而交換了大量的電子郵件。

        “我是否應該嘗試虛構地址?”

        摩根大通的訴訟顯示,這位數據科學教授的任務是為Frank創造近430萬客戶的數據,包括姓名、郵件和生日,而且教授和賈維斯據稱從一開始便清楚地意識到,他們完全了解這些信息都將是虛構的。

        當創建新客戶姓名時,這位教授據稱通過電子郵件向賈維斯發送了一個建議模型,該模型能夠通過單獨測試名和姓來剔除真實存在的姓名,從而“確保所有這些選取姓名都不是真實的?!?/p>

        在另一封電子郵件里,這位教授據稱發現了眾多賬戶的個人信息歷史都是一樣的,包括重復率異常之高的高中生姓名和家鄉。這位教授寫道:“如果[由他]審計,這類清單[在他]看起來十分可疑?!痹V訟指出,在創建電話號碼方面,賈維斯據稱曾經告訴教授,即便賬戶電話號碼出現一定的重復也是可以接受的,只要重復率不超過“5%-7%”就行。

        訴訟稱,事實證明,考慮到創建獨特地址的復雜性,實際地址成為了最大的問題之一。據稱這位教授曾經一度告訴賈維斯,他們“在地址方面耗費了過多的時間”。在這一流程的初期,教授據稱對賈維斯說,他在尋找可信的地址方面遇到了問題。他問:“我是否應該嘗試來虛構地址?”賈維斯回答道:“只要別出現美國不存在的街道名就行?!?/p>

        摩根大通的訴訟表示,在這個問題上,這位數據科學教授給賈維斯寄了一張1.33萬美元的賬單。然而,其工作總結據稱出了問題,因為教授據稱記下了自己幫助創建的所有偽造信息的單個費用項目。訴訟稱,賈維斯“立即”要求教授重做這份賬單,而且只寫一項費用——“數據分析”,同時承諾向其發放獎金,并將賬單額度提升至1.8萬美元。然后,教授據稱答應了這一要求。

        摩根大通的發言人巴勃羅·羅德里格斯告訴《財富》雜志,摩根大通與賈維斯之間的爭議只能通過法院來解決。

        他說:“我們在訴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,以及關鍵事實。任何爭議都將通過法律程序解決?!保ㄘ敻恢形木W)

        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.

        熱讀文章
        熱門視頻
        掃描二維碼下載財富APP
        少妇被?得好爽
        <address id="dtptn"></address>

        <form id="dtptn"><listing id="dtptn"><meter id="dtptn"></meter></listing></form>

        <form id="dtptn"><nobr id="dtptn"></nobr></form>
            <sub id="dtptn"><listing id="dtptn"></listing></sub>

            <noframes id="dtptn">
              <noframes id="dtptn"><form id="dtptn"><th id="dtptn"></th></form>