Convicted iComTech Ponzi scammer David Brend has been sentenced to $195,305 in forfeiture.

Following his conviction, Brend (right) was sentenced to ten years in prison in December 2024.

At the time of sentencing, the court ordered restitution but specified “the final amount” would be set at a later date.

Following a proposed forfeiture order from the DOJ, which Brend opposed, the court ordered $195,305 in restitution on February 3rd, 2025.

In his opposition, Brend argued he

(1) did not use the funds deposited by victims for his own benefit;

(2) was unaware of the conspiracy during the relevant time period and did not jointly agree to participate in it, making the
proceeds of the conspiracy unforeseeable to him; and

(3) was himself a victim of the IcomTech scheme.

In his “I didn’t benefit from deposited funds argument”, Brend argued he invested funds deposited by his victims into a True Credit Repair account were then invested into iComTech.

From the court;

This argument is without merit.

The evidence adduced at trial indicates not only that the funds that flowed into the True Credit Repair account were obtained as result of Brend’s participation in the IcomTech conspiracy, but also that Brend, in fact, used these funds for his own benefit.

As the Court has previously explained, the evidence shows that Brend used the True Credit Repair bank accounts to pay his wife, Laryssa Brend, and take personal trips, among other things.

On Brend being unaware of iComTech’s fraud and being a victim;

Brend’s second and third related objections — that he was unaware of the conspiracy and was a victim himself — are likewise rejected.

The jury has found Brend guilty of knowingly participating in the charged conspiracy and the Court has rejected Brend’s posttrial motions.

As a result, Brend’s second and third objections are without merit.

Whether anything comes of it remains to be seen but, on February 10th, Brend’s attorney filed a letter to the court objecting to the already ordered restitution.

The Government does not offer any evidence to prove the total loss amount in the forfeiture request.

Further, the Government has not shown that Mr. Brend’s actions caused the damage or harm for which compensation was sought for the 24 alleged victims.

The defense proposes that the Court eschew the proffer of the Government and impose no restitution as to Mr. Brend, or at a minimum direct the Government to provide Mr. Brend with the evidence upon which it is relying in reaching the total loss amount, so Mr. Brend can have a fair and full opportunity to respond to the same.

Don’t expect any of those arguments to prevail but I’ll update below once the court has addressed Brend’s motion.