US Government Seeks to Uphold Jury Verdicts in IcomTech Crypto Fraud Case
On Thursday, August 22, 2024, the United States government filed a memorandum of law in opposition to post-trial motions filed by defendants David Brend and Gustavo Rodriguez in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Brend and Rodriguez were convicted in March 2024 of participating in a wire fraud conspiracy involving the fraudulent cryptocurrency investment scheme IcomTech. In their post-trial motions, both defendants sought a judgment of acquittal or a new trial under Rules 29 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
In its opposition memorandum, the government argued the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict both Brend and Rodriguez of knowingly joining the fraudulent conspiracy. The prosecution outlined how the 10-day trial featured testimony from victims and cooperating witnesses, as well as hundreds of exhibits including text messages implicating the defendants in recruiting investors and keeping the scheme running.
While Rodriguez’s motion was described as conclusory, adopting his oral arguments made after the close of evidence, Brend’s filing specifically claimed the evidence was insufficient to prove he knew IcomTech was perpetrating wire fraud or that he consciously avoided such knowledge. However, the government memo detailed extensive circumstantial evidence showing Brend actively promoted IcomTech through recruitment presentations and communications aimed at misleading investors.
This included directing victims to send money to his shell company rather than IcomTech, giving excuses to delay withdrawals as the scheme collapsed, and then steering former victims to subsequent fraudulent cryptocurrency investment programs. The memo argued such a pattern of deception showed Brend’s participation was knowing and intentional, rather than the result of negligence.
In opposition to Brend’s request for a new trial, the government asserted the trial evidence did not heavily preponderate against the guilty verdict, and Brend’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims could and should be denied based on the existing record. However, if the court did not deny the motion outright, the memo suggested deferring a decision until Brend could formally waive attorney-client privilege and allow his former lawyer to respond.
The court has not yet ruled on the defendants’ post-trial motions. However, the government memorandum made the case that both Brend and Rodriguez received fair trials and the jury verdicts against them should stand.
Please contact BlockTribune for access to a copy of this filing.
