Sure Enough – Another FCPA Defendant Cites DOJ’s Adani Letter
This recent post highlighted the DOJ’s response in the Adani et al matter in which Judge Nicholas Garaufis (E.D.N.Y.) directed the DOJ “to advise the court of each reason for dismissing the Indictment with prejudice as against all Defendants and to provide the court with sufficient factual support for each basis.”
The DOJ responded with a 10 page letter from R. Trent McCotter (Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General).
The letter began with various reasons for why it was not proper for a Court to demand more detailed explanations for such a DOJ discretionary decision.
Among other things, McCotter stated:
Checking In On The Smartmatic Action
In October 2025, Smartmatic was criminally charged with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions, money laundering conspiracy, and money laundering in connection with an alleged bribery scheme involving the former Chairman of the Commission on Elections of the Philippines. (See here for the prior post).
The allegations involved the same core conduct alleged in a 2024 FCPA enforcement action involving two company executives, among others.
The criminal indictment against Smartmatic was notable in that 2010 was the last time a business organization was criminally indicted for FCPA offenses (as opposed to a criminal information / complaint resolved through a plea agreement or deferred prosecution agreement; non-prosecution agreement; or declination with disgorgement).
Smartmatic: “The Constitution Protects Defendants … From Having To Defend Against Such Opaque Charges”
In October 2025, Smartmatic was criminally charged with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions, money laundering conspiracy, and money laundering in connection with an alleged bribery scheme involving the former Chairman of the Commission on Elections of the Philippines. (See here for the prior post).
The allegations involved the same core conduct alleged in a 2024 FCPA enforcement action (still pending) involving two company executives, among others.
This recent post highlighted the DOJ’s response to Smartmatic’s motion to dismiss the indictment on the basis of “vindictive and selective prosecution.”
DOJ: Smartmatic FCPA Prosecution Is “Not Vindictive Or Selective”
In October 2025, Smartmatic was criminally charged with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions, money laundering conspiracy, and money laundering in connection with an alleged bribery scheme involving the former Chairman of the Commission on Elections of the Philippines. (See here for the prior post).
The allegations involved the same core conduct alleged in a 2024 FCPA enforcement action (still pending) involving two company executives, among others.
The criminal indictment against Smartmatic was notable in that 2010 was the last time a business organization was criminally indicted for FCPA offenses (as opposed to a criminal information / complaint resolved through a plea agreement or deferred prosecution agreement; non-prosecution agreement; or declination with disgorgement).
Earlier this month, Smartmatic moved to dismiss the indictment on the basis of “vindictive and selective prosecution.”
Recently, the DOJ responded to the motion and states in pertient part:
Smartmatic Files Motion To Dismiss For “Vindictive And Selective Prosecution”
In October 2025, Smartmatic was criminally charged with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions, money laundering conspiracy, and money laundering in connection with an alleged bribery scheme involving the former Chairman of the Commission on Elections of the Philippines. (See here for the prior post).
The allegations involved the same core conduct alleged in a 2024 FCPA enforcement action (still pending) involving two company executives, among others.
The criminal indictment against Smartmatic was notable in that 2010 was the last time a business organization was criminally indicted for FCPA offenses (as opposed to a criminal information / complaint resolved through a plea agreement or deferred prosecution agreement; non-prosecution agreement; or declination with disgorgement).
Yesterday, Smartmatic moved to dismiss the indictment on the basis of “vindictive and selective prosecution.”
In summary fashion, the motion states: