If SoftBank invests in a 30 Under 30 founder, does it cancel each other out, or does it effectively speed-run the time between investment and jail time
Most of successful founders are over 40. They should probably drop the paradigm entirely and start publishing a "40 over 40" list for up and coming founders.
For the record there are several regions, most with many many categories (some rather sad ones from the NA list: "venture capital", "social media", "retail and e-commerce", and "marketing and advertising"). There were 1230 total people on the global lists this year. Of course Forbes can't really defend itself because the notion of a "twelve hundred under 30" damages the pay-to-play golden goose. I would recommend poking around the list if you ever want a mood lightener. There are a truly comical number of people whose bio reads: "co-founder (CEO is over 30) of AI powered yadada which has raised $3M from investors". I think the median 30u30 business actually has considerably less revenue than a typical convenience store.
WTH good ranking for Forbes. How much % is fraud at Forbes?
JPMorgan was lured in by what appeared to be a database of 4 million users. In reality, that figure hovered around 300,000 users.
Federal prosecutors had requested a 12-year prison sentence. Lawyers for Ms Javice, who had pleaded not guilty, had asked for just 18 months.
US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein also ordered Ms Javice to forfeit more than $22m - and pay more than $287m to JPMorgan together with her co-defendant Olivier Amar, the start-up's chief growth and acquisition officer.
Ms Javice, 33, made a name for herself in finance after founding Frank in 2017. The start-up was lauded for helping students navigate the college financial aid process, and Ms Javice was named on the Forbes '30 Under 30' list two years after starting the company.
The convicted founders were ordered to pay $280m to JPMorgan. Is this paying them back, and if so, is it not there the entire list of investors / angels / seed backers doing the payback?
For years VC’s were (well, often still may be) ‘vibe investing’. No one wanted to look, because it was a competitive disadvantage to look (deal purchase wise). And usually it wasn’t that bad.
That’s what ‘infinite money’ eventually does in an economy.
And that's exactly why they threw the book at her. It's paradoxical, all judges say they want you to come clean and show remorse. But every case I've ever seen, they always go much harder on those that admit their wrongdoings. I'm not agreeing either way, it's just an observation.
The best legal strategy is to show no remorse and to never admit any guilt even if you have been convicted.
I always just assumed it was Game Theory Optimal to simply deny, deny, deny, before, during, and after any trial or legal action. Never admit to any wrongdoing. Always "vigorously defend" from and "strenuously object" to anything damning. You never see a company's counsel advising admitting to anything bad whatsoever.
In 2017, the United States Department of Education accused Frank of potentially misleading customers.
In 2018, Javice was sued by Adi Omesy, a co-founder of Frank, over wage theft in Israel.
And much more.
How did the bank ignore all those red flags? and how do serial criminals and fraudulent 'founders' like her kept getting praise in the media and funding for their scams? Seems more like a flaw in the system that rewards sociopaths.
reply