Brend (right) was found guilty and given a ten-year jail term in December 2024.

The court ordered restitution at the time of sentencing, but stated that “the final amount” will be determined later.

On February 3rd, 2025, the court awarded $195,305 in restitution after Brend challenged a proposed forfeiture order from the DOJ.

Brend countered by saying he

(1) did not profit personally from the money victims deposited;

(2) did not jointly consent to engage in the conspiracy and was not aware of it during the pertinent time period, therefore he was unable to predict its course; and

(3) fell prey to the IcomTech scam himself.

Brend claimed in his “I didn’t benefit from deposited funds argument” that he invested money that his victims had put into a True Credit Repair account before investing it in iComTech.

From the court;
There is no merit to this argument.

In addition to proving that Brend’s involvement in the IcomTech conspiracy resulted in the money flowing into the True Credit Repair account, the evidence presented throughout the trial also shows that Brend actually utilised the money for his own gain.

As previously noted by the Court, the evidence demonstrates that Brend, among other things, paid his wife, Laryssa Brend, and took personal vacations using the True Credit Repair bank accounts.

On Brend being unaware of iComTech’s fraud and being a victim;
Brend’s second and third related arguments, which claim that he was a victim himself and was not aware of the plot, are also denied.

The Court denied Brend’s posttrial petitions, and the jury found him guilty of knowing involvement in the alleged conspiracy.

Brend’s second and third complaints are thus without validity.

Although it’s unclear if it will result in anything, Brend’s lawyer sent a letter to the court on February 10th protesting the compensation that had already been issued.
In the forfeiture request, the government provides no proof of the whole lost amount.

Furthermore, the government has not demonstrated that Mr. Brend’s activities resulted in the suffering or damage that the 24 putative victims requested compensation for.

In order to give Mr. Brend a fair and complete chance to respond, the defence suggests that the Court reject the Government’s proposal and not impose any restitution for him, or at the very least, order the Government to give Mr. Brend the evidence it used to determine the total loss amount.
I’ll provide an update below when the court has considered Brend’s request, but don’t anticipate any of those arguments to win out.