As highlighted in this prior post, in August 2024 the DOJ announced that a “federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida returned an indictment … charging three executives of an election voting machine and service provider company and a former Chairman of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) of the Republic of the Philippines for their roles in an alleged bribery and money laundering scheme to retain and obtain business related to the 2016 Philippine elections. […] These bribes were allegedly paid to obtain and retain business related to providing voting machines and election services for the 2016 Philippine elections and to secure payments on the contracts, including the release of value added tax payments.”
Although not mentioned in the indictment, the company at issue is Smartmatic (and related entities).
The individuals charged with Foreign Corrupt Practices Act offenses were:
- Roger Alejandro Pinate Martinez (a citizen of Venezuela and resident of Florida described as a cofounder, Chief Operating Officer and President of Company 1 who was also and employee of Company 2); and
- Jorge Miguel Vasquez (a citizen of the U.S. and executive for Company 2 in Florida who managed hardware development and manufacturing worldwide for Company 1 who reported to Pinate).
With the case proceeding to trial, the DOJ recently filed “notice of its intent to introduce evidence in its case-in-chief that is intrinsic to, or inextricably intertwined with, the charged conduct, and that is, or would otherwise be, admissible pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
Among other evidence, the notice states:
“The government intends to introduce evidence of defendant Piñate’s payment of a bribe to Tibisay Lucena Ramírez, a Venezuelan elections official, through witness testimony, photographs, and text communications pursuant to FRE 404(b). Lucena Ramírez was employed by the Venezuelan National Electoral Council (“CNE”) — the governing body that oversaw the electoral process in Venezuela. Lucena Ramírez served as CNE President from approximately the mid-2000s through June 2020. Defendant Piñate, in his capacity as the Chief Operating Officer and President of Company 1, engaged in business with the Venezuelan government and, more specifically, with the CNE, to provide voting machines and related services for its elections from about 2004 through 2018. Between 2017 and 2018, Company 1 and the Venezuelan government had a dispute about the election results. This dispute caused Company 1 to leave Venezuela and led the Venezuelan government to suspend payments owed to Company 1 under the Venezuelan election contracts.
In exchange for Lucena Ramírez’s assistance with Company 1’s status as an election services provider in Venezuela going forward, defendant Piñate bribed Lucena Ramírez with the title and use of a residence in Caracas. The residence was an upper-middle class home with a pool which defendant Piñate owned and controlled through a foreign corporation. From approximately April 2019 through July 2019, defendant Piñate enlisted the aid of others — including the same Individual 1 named in the indictment — to give control of the residence to Lucena Ramírez. In text communications, defendant Piñate and others discussed giving the residence to Lucena Ramírez by transferring its title to a third party to conceal the source and nature of the transfer. Ultimately, Lucena Ramírez took control of the residence, and the government intends to prove and argue that this amounted to a bribe payment for her assistance on election-related business while she was employed at CNE.”
