Quick Read
- A Delaware judge denied JPMorgan’s attempt to stop paying Charlie Javice’s legal bills, which total at least $74 million.
- Expenses billed to JPMorgan include luxury items like hotel upgrades, first-class flights, and odd charges such as $530 in gummy bears.
- Javice and co-defendant Olivier Amar’s combined defense costs have exceeded $115 million as appeals move forward.
JPMorgan Ordered to Continue Covering Javice’s Mounting Legal Expenses
In a high-profile Delaware court decision, JPMorgan Chase must keep paying Charlie Javice’s sprawling legal bills, despite the bank’s protests over what it calls excessive and frivolous spending. The ruling, handed down Monday, comes as the nation’s largest bank faces mounting costs in its battle against Javice, the former fintech entrepreneur convicted of defrauding JPMorgan out of $175 million in the sale of her startup, Frank.
Lavish Spending Under Scrutiny: From Gummy Bears to Luxury Hotels
Court documents reveal an extraordinary list of expenses billed to JPMorgan as part of Javice’s defense—ranging from $530 in gummy bears to a $581 dinner featuring a $161 seafood tower. First-class airline tickets, $25,800 in hotel upgrades, and a $284 car ride covering just half a mile punctuate the laundry list of charges. Alcohol, including cocktails and wine, personal care items like cellulite butter, and everyday goods such as a pet hair roller and nutritional supplements have all made their way onto invoices sent to the bank.
Some expenses, according to JPMorgan’s filings, were submitted by attorneys themselves. For example, a law firm partner expensed a New York hotel stay despite his home office being in the same city. A Miami-based attorney billed for a hotel 20 minutes from her own office, and defense lawyer José Baez sought reimbursement for a Spotify subscription and a suitcase purchased at a souvenir shop. The scale and nature of these charges have led JPMorgan to accuse the defense team of treating the court-ordered fee arrangement as a “blank check.”
Legal and Ethical Debate: What Counts as a Reasonable Defense Cost?
At the heart of the dispute is the question of what expenses are legitimately connected to mounting a criminal defense. JPMorgan has previously flagged luxury charges and personal items, arguing that the bills have become “patently excessive and egregious.” A spokesperson for the bank told The Post, “This is the latest example of how the legal fees sought by Javice and Amar have been beyond patently excessive and egregious.” The bank’s filings included other curious charges: a Cookie Monster toddler toy, lavender-scented sachets, glue, a plastic cup, and even transportation to the American Museum of Natural History on a Sunday.
Javice’s spokesperson pushed back, claiming that most of the questionable expenses were incurred by attorneys, not Javice herself. “None of these were Charlie’s expenses,” the spokesperson asserted, “They were not taken by Charlie, used by her or approved by her.” The defense accuses JPMorgan of trying to evade its contractual obligation to pay legal fees by manufacturing distractions around select items.
Judge’s Ruling and Next Steps: Escrow and Appeals
Despite JPMorgan’s emergency motion to halt payments, the judge denied their request. Instead, the bank must place an undisclosed sum in escrow while the appeals process moves forward in the new year. As of Monday, the combined defense bills for Javice and her co-conspirator Olivier Amar have topped $115 million, and the bank warns that the total could rise substantially as appeals proceed. Both Javice and Amar are appealing their convictions, which include conspiracy, bank fraud, and wire fraud charges.
JPMorgan declined to comment on the ruling, while Javice’s team insists that the bank should focus on its own internal management rather than making the legal battle a public spectacle.
The story, first reported by The Wall Street Journal and confirmed by JPMorgan to The Post, has captured attention not only for the high-stakes legal questions but also for the peculiar and sometimes extravagant nature of the expenses involved. The Post reached out to the five law firms representing Javice, including Quinn Emanuel, Baez Law, Mintz, Ronald S. Sullivan, Jr., and Shapiro Arato Bach, but did not receive comment.
The long-running dispute over who should pay for Charlie Javice’s defense—down to the cost of gummy bears and hotel upgrades—underscores the tension between legal contracts and corporate accountability. As the appeals process unfolds, the case poses a broader question for the legal and financial world: How far should companies go in honoring defense obligations when the expenses stretch far beyond the courtroom?