Convicted iComTech Ponzi scammer David Brend has been sentenced to $195,305 in forfeiture.
Following his conviction, Brend (proper) was sentenced to 10 years in jail in December 2024.
On the time of sentencing, the court docket ordered restitution however specified “the ultimate quantity” can be set at a later date.
Following a proposed forfeiture order from the DOJ, which Brend opposed, the court docket ordered $195,305 in restitution on February third, 2025.
In his opposition, Brend argued he
(1) didn’t use the funds deposited by victims for his personal profit;
(2) was unaware of the conspiracy in the course of the related time interval and didn’t collectively comply with take part in it, making the
proceeds of the conspiracy unforeseeable to him; and(3) was himself a sufferer of the IcomTech scheme.
In his “I didn’t profit from deposited funds argument”, Brend argued he invested funds deposited by his victims right into a True Credit score Restore account had been then invested into iComTech.
From the court docket;
This argument is with out advantage.
The proof adduced at trial signifies not solely that the funds that flowed into the True Credit score Restore account had been obtained as results of Brend’s participation within the IcomTech conspiracy, but in addition that Brend, the truth is, used these funds for his personal profit.
Because the Court docket has beforehand defined, the proof exhibits that Brend used the True Credit score Restore financial institution accounts to pay his spouse, Laryssa Brend, and take private journeys, amongst different issues.
On Brend being unaware of iComTech’s fraud and being a sufferer;
Brend’s second and third associated objections — that he was unaware of the conspiracy and was a sufferer himself — are likewise rejected.
The jury has discovered Brend responsible of knowingly taking part within the charged conspiracy and the Court docket has rejected Brend’s posttrial motions.
In consequence, Brend’s second and third objections are with out advantage.
Whether or not something comes of it stays to be seen however, on February tenth, Brend’s legal professional filed a letter to the court docket objecting to the already ordered restitution.
The Authorities doesn’t supply any proof to show the entire loss quantity within the forfeiture request.
Additional, the Authorities has not proven that Mr. Brend’s actions triggered the harm or hurt for which compensation was searched for the 24 alleged victims.
The protection proposes that the Court docket eschew the proffer of the Authorities and impose no restitution as to Mr. Brend, or at a minimal direct the Authorities to offer Mr. Brend with the proof upon which it’s relying in reaching the entire loss quantity, so Mr. Brend can have a good and full alternative to reply to the identical.
Don’t anticipate any of these arguments to prevail however I’ll replace beneath as soon as the court docket has addressed Brend’s movement.