| After Guilty
Verdicts In IcomTech Crypto
Ponzi Trial US Says Jurors
Should Not Be Contacted
by
Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book
Substack
SDNY
COURTHOUSE,
March 22 – 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 animum is expressed,
not relevant here.
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
|
,
