After years of delay, the criminal case against the co-founders of Epic Charter Schools moves forward, reopening questions about public money, private control and accountability.
Table of Contents
- A Long-Delayed Hearing Resumes
- The Disputed Student Learning Fund
- Testimony, Politics and a Plea Deal
A Long-Delayed Hearing Resumes
Nearly two years after it was first set in motion, the preliminary hearing in the criminal case against the co-founders of Epic Charter Schools resumed this week in Oklahoma City.
Prosecutors have charged the founders, David Chaney and Ben Harris, with racketeering, embezzlement of state funds and obtaining money by false pretenses. The case centers on allegations that public education dollars were improperly diverted through affiliated entities connected to the men.
The hearing, held to determine whether sufficient evidence exists for the case to proceed to trial, marks a pivotal stage in a prosecution that has drawn statewide attention. Epic, once one of Oklahoma’s largest virtual charter school operators, enrolled tens of thousands of students at its peak and received hundreds of millions in state funding.
The courtroom proceedings this week focused heavily on financial structure and ownership, underscoring how the case may hinge less on broad accusations than on technical distinctions about control and classification of funds.
At issue is whether certain accounts constituted public money subject to embezzlement statutes or private funds beyond the reach of such charges.
The Disputed Student Learning Fund
Much of the day’s testimony revolved around Epic’s Student Learning Fund, a pool of money prosecutors allege was used improperly.
According to the state, funds intended for student educational expenses were redirected in ways that violated Oklahoma law. The defense, however, maintains that the account was not public in nature but belonged to Epic Youth Services, a private entity owned exclusively by Chaney and Harris.
In a statement following Thursday’s hearing, Gary Wood, an attorney for Chaney, asserted that bank records admitted into evidence show Epic Youth Services as the sole owner of the funds in question. If the account was privately held, the defense argues, it cannot form the basis of an embezzlement charge involving public dollars.
Prosecutors counter that the source and purpose of the money render it subject to public oversight, regardless of how it was structured on paper.
The distinction may prove decisive. Embezzlement statutes typically require the misappropriation of funds entrusted for public use. The defense’s argument seeks to sever that link by emphasizing corporate ownership and contractual arrangements.
Legal analysts observing the case say the hearing phase is critical, as it will determine whether a judge believes the state has presented enough evidence to warrant a full trial.
Testimony, Politics and a Plea Deal
Also central to the proceedings was the testimony of Joshua Brock, Epic’s former chief financial officer.
Brock previously reached a tentative agreement with prosecutors in 2024. In exchange for his testimony, he would receive 15 years of probation and restitution with a suspended sentence. The arrangement means Brock would be a convicted felon but would not serve prison time, provided he complies with the terms of probation.
Spending much of the day on the witness stand, Brock described internal financial practices and conversations with the co-founders. His testimony included claims that he had been asked by Chaney and Harris to run against Cindy Byrd following her office’s 2020 audit, which identified financial irregularities within Epic.
The political dimension adds another layer to a case already entwined with questions of governance and oversight. Charter schools in Oklahoma have long operated at the intersection of public funding and private management, a structure that has generated both innovation and controversy.
For Chaney and Harris, the stakes are substantial. A ruling allowing the case to proceed to trial would extend legal uncertainty for a venture that once positioned itself as a transformative force in public education.
For the state, the case represents a test of how far prosecutors can go in challenging complex financial arrangements between public institutions and private operators.
As the preliminary hearing continues, the courtroom debate has crystallized into a fundamental question: when public money flows through private entities, where does accountability ultimately reside?
EDITED BY – SARTHAK MOOLCHANDANI
{ STUDENT OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND INTERN AT HOSTELBEE}