| After
Verdicts In IcomTech Crypto
Ponzi Rodriguez Bid for
Sentencing Delay Is Denied
by
Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book
Substack
SDNY
COURTHOUSE,
Oct 3
– For a cryptocurrency
Ponzi scheme called IcomTech,
which held a promotional event
in or near NYC's Times Square,
David Carmona on December 21
pled guilty before U.S.
District Court for the
Southern District of New York
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon.
Inner City Press was there to
cover it - and a related
upcoming trial. But first,
pleas.
On January 12,
the US Attorney's Office wrote
in asking for Ruiz Ochoa a
sentence near the top of the
57 to 71 month range.
On January 19,
Inner City Press attended the
sentencing, to five years, thread
On March 11, the
cooperator of the witness
stand was asked by the
prosecution about a lengthy
Excel speadsheet, then cross
examined about money
laundering for drug dealers,
and buying cars including BMWs
and what he called a "Lambhor
jee-nee."
On March 12, the
government had on the stand a
witness who had bought into
IcomTech then made money
bringing in others "down line"
from her. On cross examination
she repeatedly asked to
provide longer explanations,
but was told that would have
to be on re-direct. But it may
be fast: by day's end it was
said that closings can be on
May 13.
And they were,
including Brend being
described, or shown, to be
demanding a $12 fee on top of
$3300 he was taking from a
victim. Next up: verdict.
In came late on
March 14, not without drama, here:
OK - now in case
of Brend / IcomTech, there's a
verdict sent out by jury-
along with a note expressing
concern about juror anonymity
and safety. Defense says this
is serious, wants time to
brief.
Defense counsel
cites a case he says was about
John Gotti and problems cause
by juror fear. Judge: I will
not grant a mistrial. I don't
see any indication of outside
influence. The note does not
say there is fear, only
concern about confidentiality
Judge: This
is very different than a juror
being approached by mobsters.
So I will take the verdict -
any concerns can be raised in
post-trial motions, depending
on what the verdict is. I will
direct the parties not to
contact the jurors. Defense:
We'd like to contact
Jury
entering! Judge: I have an
envelope, I'll now open it.
I'll ask my Deputy to hand the
verdict form to the
foreperson, please. On the
sole count of conspiracy to
commit wire fraud, Brend?
Guilty. Gustavo Rodriguez?
Guilty. [Jurors are polled]
[There are now US
Marshals in the back of the
courtroom - will the
prosecutors be asking for
immediate remand to prison?]
Judge: I thank you for your
decision making. You are free
of your obligation not to
discuss the case. It's up to
you
Jury leaves.
Judge: Does the government
have any applications? AUSA:
Now post verdict, see
3143(a)(1), the burden is on
the defendants. We think Mr.
Rodriguez should be detained.
Mr. Brend, we'd add home
detention, GPS in Tampa where
he lives.
AUSA: Mr.
Rodriguez is not a US citizen.
This is an aggravated felony;
he is presumptively
deportable. He faces a very
significant sentence here.
There's an enhancement for
over $25 million. He was
involved in other MLMs. He has
family in South America: 11
trips
Update: in
the middle of the post-verdict
remand arguments, a woman
walking out of the court room
collapsed, with her eyes
closed. 9-1-1 was called. She
was described as defendant
Brend's mother in law,
speaking only Portuguese. Now
a break has been taken
EMS
arrived: court resumes. AUSA:
Gustavo Rodriguez might just
flee to Argentina. Defense:
His 18 year old son is here,
willing to testify, he would
not leave him or his 16 year
old. Judge: There is a guilty
verdict, Mr Rodriguez will be
detained
Rodriguez'
lawyer: May my client speak
with the son before he is
remanded? To tell him how to
get home? Judge: Marshals, can
you wait a few minutes?
Marshal: Yes.
On March 22, the
US Attorney's Office argued
that the ban on contacting
jurors imposed after the
verdict should continue, that
they not be harassed by the
defeated party (citing Moten,
582 F.2d at 664). The only
exemption, they say, if if
racial animus is expressed,
not relevant here.
On June 18,
counsel for David Carmona who
pled wrote to the Probation
Department objecting to the
PSR, suggest a guideline of 41
to 51 months and noting that
"as to paragraph 75, the
matter for which Mr. Carmona
was arrested in Las Vegas,
Nevada was dismissed and
sealed." But the PSR still
picked it up...
On July 29 David
Brend got a Fatico hearing on
loss amounts, appearing for it
by video. Inner City Press was
in the courtroom, from the
thread:
US describing
"underestimated" loss
amount...
Judge Rochon:
What about conscious
avoidance?
Assistant US
Attorney: It doesn't reduce
the loss amount... Brend sent
WebEx invites as widely as
possible
On September 20,
counsel for Cardona wrote in
asking for a two year sentence
on October 4.
On September 27,
the US asked for 188 months on
Cardona.
On October 3,
Gustavo Rodriguez's requests
got shot down: "ENDORSED
LETTER as to Gustavo Rodriguez
addressed to Judge Ross from
Attorney Jeffrey Cohn dated
October 1, 2024 re: I write to
request that the Court adjourn
sentencing in the
above-referenced case and set
a date for a hearing on Mr.
Rodriguez' pending motions
pursuant to Rules 29 and 33 of
the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure. It is Mr.
Rodriguez' intention to
testify at the proposed
hearing. As regards the timing
of this letter, shortly after
undersigned counsel was
retained, Mr. Rodriguez had
proposed meeting with the
government and it was only
yesterday that the government
informed me that it refused to
meet with him. ENDORSEMENT:
The request to adjourn
sentencing is DENIED.
Defendant was found guilty on
March 14, 2024 and the
sentencing date has already
been repeatedly adjourned in
this case. Therefore, it will
not be moved. The Court will
hear argument on Defendant's
Rule 29 and Rule 33 motions on
October 11, 2024 at 11:00 a.m.
SO ORDERED. ( Motion Hearing
set for 10/11/2024 at 11:00 AM
before Judge Jennifer L.
Rochon. ) (Signed by Judge
Jennifer L. Rochon on
10/3/2024) "
More on X for
Subscribers here
and Substack here
The case is US v.
Carmona, et al., 22-cr-551
(Rochon)
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2024 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
