Authorities are offering up to $150,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the StarClub founder, whose investment fraud case resulted in a prison sentence after evidence described personal spending on vehicles, a yacht and property improvements.
WASHINGTON, DC, October 5, 2026
The FBI is offering a reward of up to $150,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Bernhard Eugen Fritsch, a technology entrepreneur whose departure from the United States has left a 15-year prison sentence unenforced.
The founder of Santa Monica-based StarClub remains publicly wanted following his addition to the bureau’s Most Wanted Fraudsters list on September 3, with investigators believing he is living in or near Munich, Germany, according to the current wanted notice.
The appeal seeks information about a man already convicted of wire fraud, focusing on apprehending him and enforcing the resulting judgment rather than announcing an initial accusation against an entrepreneur awaiting his first trial.
Behind the reward figure is a case involving investor losses, false claims about a celebrity-focused application, and spending on luxury assets, followed by an international departure that expanded a California prosecution into an ongoing effort to secure the defendant’s custody.
The Reward Has Specific Published Terms
The FBI’s wanted notice states that the reward is for information leading to Fritsch’s arrest and conviction, and its use of up to $150,000 identifies a maximum advertised amount rather than an automatic payment for any submitted lead.
The notice lists the wanted matter as failure to appear associated with wire fraud, while the established fraud conviction remains part of the underlying case history, explaining why the public appeal must be read alongside the later court outcomes.
Although the reward language includes conviction, that wording does not mean the April 2025 wire fraud verdict is still pending, nor does it establish that an additional conviction concerning his absence has already occurred in the proceedings.
The published appeal does not provide a detailed formula for evaluating competing tips or calculating an award, so readers should not assume that identifying a familiar photograph, repeating a reported location or submitting an unverified claim would satisfy its conditions.
A Local Technology Case Receives Wider Attention
The Santa Monica Daily Press reported Fritsch’s addition to the list and the reward offer, bringing the renewed appeal back to the city where StarClub operated before its founder became the subject of an international fugitive search.
In the September announcement, FBI Los Angeles officials emphasized their intent to keep pursuing him despite the time required to enforce his sentence, presenting the reward as part of that ongoing effort rather than announcing that investigators had secured an arrest.
Publicity can extend an investigation’s reach by putting an identifiable person and a documented case before a larger audience, although a campaign does not reveal which leads investigators already have or what information might prove decisive.
The useful distinction for the public is between reporting relevant observations to authorities and drawing conclusions from speculation, especially when an overseas location has been described broadly without a confirmed address or an announced foreign custody arrangement.
StarSite Promised Advertising Income From Celebrity Audiences
Fritsch promoted StarClub’s StarSite application as a way for celebrities and social media influencers to publish content while sharing in advertising revenue, giving prospective investors a technology proposition built around the commercial appeal of large online audiences.
According to the Justice Department’s trial account, he solicited investment between 2014 and 2017 while making false statements about the company’s financial performance, its existing investors and the prospect of agreements or transactions with major media businesses.
Among the representations prosecutors identified was a claim that StarClub generated $15 million in revenue in 2015, along with assertions about potential investments, buyout offers, or commercial relationships with prominent companies, including Disney, that did not accurately describe the business.
Those statements concerned facts that could influence how investors assessed the company, distinguishing the criminal case from a dispute based only on disappointing growth, unsuccessful software development, or an optimistic prediction that a legitimate business ultimately failed to achieve.
The Trial Established Fraud on One Count
A federal jury in Los Angeles convicted Fritsch of one count of wire fraud in April 2025 after a nine-day trial, while finding him not guilty on a second count, according to the Justice Department’s contemporaneous account.
The mixed verdict matters because the established offense should be reported accurately without extending the guilty finding to a count the jury rejected, even as the conviction supplies a firm legal basis for describing him as a convicted fraudster.
The government’s account said one victim invested more than $20 million over two years and introduced additional investors, showing how a financial relationship with one backer could bring further capital into the company through that person’s introductions.
That sequence does not establish wrongdoing by the investor who made introductions, but it illustrates how confidence in a founder’s representations can spread through personal networks before the underlying claims are tested against financial records and other evidence.
Personal Purchases Became Part of the Evidence
Prosecutors described investor money supporting luxury cars, improvements to a yacht and renovations to Fritsch’s Malibu home, expenditures that drew attention because the fundraising representations had identified technology development and other corporate activities as intended uses of the capital.
The vehicles identified by authorities included a McLaren and a Rolls-Royce, while the residence was near Carbon Beach, details that gave the case a conspicuous setting but remained relevant principally through their connection to the movement of investor funds.
The FBI reported seizing the yacht and both cars, although seizure alone does not establish their final sale value, whether ownership disputes were resolved or the amount of money ultimately made available for distribution to people harmed by the offense.
The financial issue was the gap between promised business spending and actual personal benefit, not the assumption that expensive possessions themselves establish fraud or that every dollar invested in the company necessarily purchased a personal luxury.
Different Financial Figures Describe Different Things
The FBI’s wanted profile refers to approximately $35 million raised for StarClub, while the prosecution’s earlier announcement described more than $20 million obtained from investors and the later judgment required restitution exceeding $26.8 million, figures that should retain their individual labels.
Total fundraising, money attributed to particular victims and court-ordered restitution are different measures, making it misleading to select the largest number and describe it automatically as Fritsch’s personal profit, cash currently available to him or money already recovered.
The reward falls into another category entirely, as it is an incentive for qualifying information connected with apprehension and conviction, not a compensation fund for investors or a figure that measures the financial scope of the underlying offense.
Clear accounting language therefore helps readers understand both the scale and the limits of what has been established, avoiding a combined total that would count related financial amounts more than once or imply recovery that authorities have not confirmed.
The Departure Came Before a Custody Hearing
Fritsch remained free on bond after the verdict, and a hearing concerning whether he would be taken into federal custody was scheduled for June 2, 2025, with sentencing expected later, according to the Justice Department’s subsequent description of events.
Authorities said he left the United States for Mexico on June 2 to avoid being taken into custody, and a federal warrant followed his failure to appear at the post-conviction hearing concerning revocation of his bond.
This sequence places the departure between conviction and sentencing, rather than before trial or after a completed prison term, which explains why authorities pursued someone whose criminal liability on the fraud count had already been determined.
The court’s later actions also demonstrate that physical absence did not erase the verdict, even though securing the defendant’s presence remained a separate enforcement task that could not be completed simply by entering additional orders in the American case.
Detention in Mexico Did Not Produce a Return
The FBI reported that Mexican authorities detained Fritsch in September 2025 after finding him with false identification in violation of immigration law, but subsequently released him under a requirement to report to an immigration court every two weeks.
According to the bureau, he instead traveled to Munich on October 6, 2025, leaving the public record with a documented sequence of foreign detention and departure rather than a completed transfer into custody in the United States.
The available account does not explain every decision in the Mexican immigration proceedings, and the release should not be attributed to bribery, official complicity or any particular legal agreement without evidence supporting such a serious additional allegation.
For the reward appeal, the practical consequence is that an earlier encounter with foreign authorities did not finish the enforcement effort, while the later assessment that he may be near Munich remains distinct from confirmation of his present address.
A Sentence and Restitution Order Are Already in Place
Fritsch received a 15-year federal prison sentence in absentia on October 20, 2025, along with a $35,000 fine, and was later ordered to pay $26,806,901 in restitution, according to the FBI’s September account of his case.
The prison term is an imposed sentence rather than a possible statutory maximum, while restitution identifies a financial obligation arising from the judgment rather than proof that the full amount has been collected or distributed to investors.
An eventual apprehension would therefore concern enforcement against a defendant already sentenced on the fraud conviction, although the reviewed materials do not establish what additional hearings or separate matters would be scheduled following any return to American custody.
Investors’ recovery would still require its own documented progress, because bringing a defendant into custody and collecting money under a judgment answer different questions, even when both form part of the public expectation of accountability after a fraud conviction.
His Absence Also Affected Appellate Review
The Ninth Circuit dismissed Fritsch’s appeal on April 23, 2026, under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, according to the published docket, granting the government’s request to end the appeal while he remained outside the court’s authority as a fugitive.
The order permitted him to seek reinstatement if he surrendered within 120 days, a period the Justice Department identified as ending August 21, 2026, and the materials reviewed do not establish a timely surrender or subsequent reinstatement.
That dismissal concerned the consequences of fugitive status for the appeal, rather than a new decision evaluating every argument about the trial, and it should not be described as though an appellate panel issued a fresh verdict on the underlying evidence.
The development adds another dimension to the reward campaign, showing that the consequences of remaining absent can include restrictions on appellate review, as well as the ongoing effort to bring a sentenced defendant into physical custody.
Assistance From His Partner Produced a Separate Conviction
Fritsch’s partner, Lucinda Jane Weist Manera, pleaded guilty on June 29, 2026, to being an accessory after the fact, with the Justice Department describing conduct intended to help him avoid apprehension and punishment following the fraud verdict.
The plea agreement included false statements to federal agents and financial assistance while he was hiding in Mexico, tying the separate prosecution to specific admitted actions rather than treating the existence of their relationship as sufficient evidence of wrongdoing.
Her sentencing was scheduled for October 5 in the department’s announcement, which identified a maximum possible prison term of five years, a legal ceiling that should not be confused with punishment already imposed as of that announcement.
The case provides documented evidence that assisting a fugitive can become a separate prosecutorial issue, but it offers no basis to accuse every relative, acquaintance, or former business associate of participating in the conduct for which she pleaded guilty.
Nationality and Custody Remain Separate From the Reward
The Justice Department’s account notes that Germany generally prohibits extradition of its citizens, a complication relevant to Fritsch’s reported presence there, but the available materials do not establish a completed German ruling on a specific extradition request in his case.
That restriction does not cancel the American conviction, eliminate restitution or convert the reward appeal into an announcement that authorities have abandoned enforcement, and the continuing FBI notice confirms that the bureau is still publicly seeking information about him.
A broad assessment of where someone may be living also does not establish the legal authority to transfer that person, making location information and lawful custody separate questions that may require different kinds of evidence and official action.
The September listing provides no reliable timetable for a return, and predicting one would go beyond the confirmed record, which establishes a conviction, an imposed sentence, reported travel to Germany and an active American appeal for information.
International Documentation Does Not Resolve a Judgment
For readers considering legitimate citizenship arrangements, Amicus International Consulting’s second-passport information addresses a separate planning subject, while the Fritsch case illustrates why nationality and the status of an existing criminal judgment require distinct and accurate descriptions in international matters.
The company’s tax identification information concerns administrative documentation, and neither a tax number nor citizenship paperwork establishes that a person has satisfied restitution, completed a prison sentence or obtained a court order resolving outstanding obligations connected with a criminal case.
The reviewed reporting contains no evidence connecting Amicus International Consulting or its services with Fritsch, StarClub or his movements abroad, and nothing establishes that a newly acquired citizenship or an identity-change service formed part of the documented departure.
The Appeal Seeks Information That Can Advance Enforcement
People with information can contact the FBI through its published reporting channels, including the national telephone tipline at 1-800-225-5324, and the bureau will assess whether a lead is credible, relevant, and useful to the continuing investigation.
The Most Wanted Fraudsters initiative is separate from the FBI’s traditional Ten Most Wanted Fugitives program, and Fritsch’s inclusion highlights a financial crime case without changing the verdict, sentence or other orders that already define his legal position.
The $150,000 maximum reward brings renewed visibility to that unfinished enforcement effort, while a confirmed surrender, arrest or financial recovery would provide the next substantive evidence of progress for authorities and investors following the consequences of the StarClub fraud.
