This feels like a case of both parties getting caught up in their own bullshit. It seems unlikely that the founder was intentionally fabricating data in order

This feels like a case of both parties getting caught up in their own bullshit. It seems unlikely that the founder was intentionally fabricating data in order to commit fraud. Far more likely is that the founder was caught up in Silicon Valley startup culture, told they were disrupting industries and changing the world, and didn't put enough into actually doing the work, and ended up thinking their company was much more important than it was. Throw in some of the toxicity of #girlboss culture (this is a criticism of the negative aspects, we do need more female founders), and you get a Dunning-Kruger situation. I can see how someone would then keep digging rather than pull out if things started to turn. On the other side, JPMorgan obviously didn't do any real due diligence. They were too caught up in the industry hype, and want to continue their cosplay as a tech disruptor. Finding this would have taken almost no effort, there wasn't much attempt to hide it. Promoting what the company wants to be true rather than what is actually true is a clear sign of a rotten culture – people won't speak up even when there is literally no good outcome that can come from staying silent. JPMorgan got exactly what they deserved with this deal. I feel sorry for the founder getting caught up in the cultural currents that led to this, and while they need some accountability, a prison sentence probably isn't right.