This prior post highlighted a recent DOJ FCPA enforcement action concerning an alleged bribery scheme in Mexico.
The indictment charges Ramon Alexandro Rovirosa Martinez (a citizen of Mexico and a lawful permanent resident of Texas) and Mario Alberto Avila Lizarraga (a citizen of Mexico and lawful permanent resident of Texas) for their roles in an alleged bribery scheme to retain and obtain business related to Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX), the state-owned oil company of Mexico, and PEMEX Exploración y Producción (PEP), PEMEX’s wholly owned exploration and production subsidiary.
Yesterday, Rovirosa’s attorneys (Ryan McConnell, Matthew Boyden, and Lawrence Finder – all former DOJ prosecutors) filed two motions.
The first is a motion to strike the DOJ’s reference (not in the indictment, but in a separate motion) to Rovirosa being associated with Mexican cartels.
The motion states:
“Mr. Rovirosa is charged in a multi-count Indictment alleging conspiracy and substantive violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”). The Indictment focuses almost exclusively on purported conduct in Mexico by co-defendant and fugitive, Mario Alberto Avila Lizarraga (“Mr. Avila”). In an August 12, 2025, letter dictating limited terms of which the government will provide required discovery to Mr. Rovirosa, prosecutors describe the conduct charged in the Indictment as a “narrow, discrete scheme that is largely borne out in WhatsApp messages” that are allegedly on the devices of Mr. Rovirosa and Mr. Avila. The Indictment is unconstitutionally vague, but that is subject to a separate motion. This motion focuses on the government’s effort to use improper court filings to unconstitutionally prejudice and disparage Mr. Rovirosa with gossip and unsubstantiated information suggesting that because he owns a plane and associates with other wealthy Mexicans in Houston, Texas, he is part of a violent Mexican drug cartel.”
Under the heading “The FCPA “Pause” and Need for a “Cartel” FCPA Case,” the motion states:
“On February 10, 2025, President Trump ordered the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), in a widely covered decision, to “pause” FCPA enforcement investigations and prosecutions for 180 days while the DOJ reviewed priorities, with a focus on Mexican cartels and transnational criminal organizations (“TCOs”). In response to the President’s directive, the DOJ published new “Guidelines for Investigations and Enforcement of the [FCPA]” prioritizing FCPA matters tied to cartels and TCOs and cases implicating U.S. national security or economic interests. In response, the DOJ dismissed a number of cases involving non-cartel and TCO activity. In this case, which began years before the current Trump Administration, the problem was, according to the discovery letter, the prosecutors had invested significant time and energy in its run-of-the-mill oil and gas investigation, which did not align with the DOJ’s new guidance focusing on Mexican drug cartels and TCOs. The only way to make the oil and gas narrative fit with “cartels,” it seemed, was to pump up some thin threads of uncorroborated and false information in a PEMEX investigation pertaining to cartels. But if you don’t have admissible and substantiated evidence of Mexican drug “cartel” activity to include with charges, how can you tie the two together in a public narrative? Unfortunately, this case provides an unconstitutional roadmap.”
Under the heading “Prosecutors Invent Cartel / FCPA Case,” the motion states:
“The government’s discovery letter to counsel for Mr. Rovirosa confirms its long- standing investigation had nothing to do with Mexican drug cartels, noting prosecutors are conducting “multiple, ongoing investigations of bribery involving PEMEX officials.” Prosecutors in this case, however, had spent years undertaking this effort before President Trump was elected and put the brakes on FCPA cases as part of his “America First” agenda. When Attorney General Bondi provided a narrow window to continue FCPA cases focusing on cartels, it seemed like FCPA prosecutions were dead in the water, unless a prosecutor could identify a “cartel” nexus to fit into the narrow opening. In this case, prosecutors did not have drug cartel conduct they could ethically charge in an Indictment (i.e., they did not have readily provable conduct), so they used threads from their investigation to launch a contemporaneous PR campaign when the Indictment was unsealed, playing on traditional stereotypes of drug traffickers—wealthy, Mexican businessmen with exotic cars and large houses. Unconstrained by the limitations imposed by a criminal Indictment, the press release would make Rovirosa, a successful Mexican businessman, fit the part prosecutors desperately needed a defendant to play in their FCPA case. And they wouldn’t even have to prove it. Once it was distributed to the global media, it wouldn’t matter what the truth was, this would be a “cartel” FCPA case. They just needed a “court document” to reference. So, they made one up.”
Under the heading “Mr. Rovirosa’s Purported Mexican Cartel Ties,” the motion states:
“By no stretch of the imagination is Mr. Rovirosa a violent Mexican drug cartel associate. Rovirosa is a father and husband, with three gifted kids, an adoring wife (all U.S. citizens), who for nearly two decades has lived in The Woodlands as a valuable member of the community. The government did not like this version of Mr. Rovirosa. So, it invented another one—a violent Mexican cartel associate. According to the government’s court protected discovery file, the basis for this “cartel” caricature is: (1) circular bank SARs generated by the DOJ’s own subpoenas that contain unreliable and unsubstantiated information and/or property transactions involving, unbeknownst to Mr. Rovirosa at the time, a man who had been a defendant; (2) partial ownership of a plane (if Mexican ownership of a plane is indicia of cartel activity); (3) uncorroborated statements of a disgruntled former business associate purportedly made at a party about Mr. Rovirosa; (4) uncorroborated and unreliable statements of a criminal cooperator in an unrelated case that Mr. Rovirosa and other wealthy Mexicans must be involved in cartels; and (5) some internet information. Nothing substantiated. Nothing admissible. And nothing that met even the lowest investigative standards. Ironically, and shockingly, the government used the same information it told the Court needed to be protected in its motion for a protective order to tell the violent cartel Rovirosa story to the public, violating its own protective order even before the Court could rule on it (more on that below). The basis for the government’s narrative was not good enough for an Indictment, but it could fit it into a press release and tell the Mexican drug cartel / FCPA story.”
Under the heading “Media FCPA Cartel Blitz,” the motion states:
“The Indictment does not mention Mexican drug cartels or any of the above information, because the government prosecutors know this is weaker than even the threaded together WhatsApp messages (complete with prosecutor commentary) in the Indictment. An improper court filing (discussed below) and dissemination of this information to the media, however, would create a citable, legitimate looking “court document” so that the details involving drug cartels and violence could be used in the government’s press release. Voila, problem solved, and the government had its first “cartel” FCPA case with a violent, drug trafficking Rovirosa. Pure fiction.
It was big news. According to the media, this case “mark[ed] the first charges under the [FCPA] filed by the Justice Department since President Trump paused foreign bribery enforcement and Attorney General Pamela Bondi ordered prosecutors to pursue cases against individuals with ties to cartels and other criminal organizations.” And it was a big deal for the prosecutors in the case, whose prospects of bringing an FCPA case after February 2025 looked grim (much less one in Spanish with virtually all of the conduct in Mexico). The DOJ’s press release in this case initially claimed that “according to court documents, Rovirosa is alleged to have ties to Mexican cartel members.” Of course, there was no mention of cartel links in the Indictment (because there is not any admissible evidence of anything of the sort). But the “court document” referenced in the press release created a basis to tell a “cartel” story. Prosecutors got to bring their FCPA case, slide into the cartel carveout to the FCPA pause, and tell the fake news story that they had captured a violent Mexican drug cartel operative.
Under the heading “Improper Court Document,” the motion states:
“The “court documents” referenced in the press release amount to a single motion, “Motion to Impose Certain Conditions of Release” under 18 U.S.C. §3142(c) and (g), which contemplates no such motion (as outlined below). This “cartel” statement, based on the government’s improper filing, spread like wildfire through media organizations, which repeated this false narrative. Two days later, when called out on the false information in the press release, the government removed it. But it did not matter, because as the first “cartel” FCPA case, not one media outlet covered the change, because the government never retracted the story. For if it did, the world would see what this case really is, a run of mill energy case, with an unconstitutionally vague indictment, referencing conduct that occurred years ago almost exclusively in Mexico, in Spanish, through unknown entities the government did not identify—the case itself a victim of an effort by prosecutors to camouflage a routine FCPA case as part of an America First agenda.
The loser in this effort is Mr. Rovirosa and his constitutional rights. As discussed below, the government’s filing is improper, and it should be struck. But the harm goes far beyond the words on the filing and has thrown Mr. Rovirosa’s life into turmoil in violation of the Constitution.”
Under the heading “Prosecutor’s Effort to Strip Rovirosa of Constitutional Rights,” the motion states:
Here is how this conduct impacts Mr. Rovirosa. In order for this case to fit the new DOJ FCPA guidance, Rovirosa had to be a cartel guy. And, not in a private sealed way, but in a big public way. Prosecutors could not charge it in the indictment because not even in their wildest dreams could they plausibly make out that the cartel was somehow involved (they did their best with the FCPA, and that did not turn out well). The only way to mention “cartel” and fit within the narrative of the Indictment, it seems, would be to mention it in a court filing the DOJ press officer could reference. And, since there was not a viable court filing to do so where it would not have been challenged by defense lawyers and, likely the magistrate judge, the only solution, it seems, was to make one up with a conjured up “motion.”
The undersigned lawyers all spent time at the government and historically have held the institution in high regard, as presumably does the Court. The Court, however, should not leave this conduct uncured. The government must undo the prejudice caused with potential jurors and the damage to Mr. Rovirosa’s Constitutional rights by retracting
its press release. The Court has a duty to examine this conduct in greater detail to evaluate the actions of the government and consider the impact of those actions on the Defendant and his due process rights. Depending upon the findings, Mr. Rovirosa will likely file other dispositive motions to address this conduct. At a minimum, the government filed an improper document that raised uncorroborated and highly prejudicial
information about Mr. Rovirosa.Even with the best of intentions presumed, this has destroyed the Defendant’s reputation and unconstitutionally stacked the deck against him. Viewed through another lens, this appears to be a deliberate effort by prosecutors to misclassify a criminal case, label the Defendant a cartel associate, and to sneak the case by politically-appointed DOJ lawyers who have flatly said they are not going to prosecute run-of-the mill bribery cases following directives from the President. Viewed in this way, it appears as though the DOJ prosecutors have deliberately violated orders of the Attorney General and the U.S. President. Either way, the Defendant’s constitutional rights have been upended, and this was not addressed by removing the false press release and cannot be cured by simply striking an improper pleading.”
The second motion filed by defense counsel is a motion for a bill of particulars. In pertinent part, the motion states:
“[The Indictment] barely mentions Mr. Rovirosa. Other than categorical assertions of Mr. Avila and Mr. Rovirosa as undertaking joint activity, the actual text messages, which form the core of the government’s case, are
virtually all between Mr. Avila and others. There is no allegation that Mr. Rovirosa knows, has met, or otherwise interacted with any of the purported “foreign officials.” The Indictment almost exclusively relies on generic references to “co-conspirators,” “foreign officials,” and “Mexico Energy Companies,” without sufficient specificity as to the alleged conduct attributable to Mr. Rovirosa in violation of the Fifth and Sixth
Amendments. The Indictment also appears to allege multiple overlapping conspiracies with separate Mexican Energy Companies—it is impossible to know for sure, because the Indictment is unconstitutionally (and intentionally) vague.It is also unclear from the Indictment precisely which acts the government contends occurred within the Southern District of Texas to support the jurisdiction nexus required to bring the case in this district. The Indictment appears to hang jurisdiction on a few text messages sent from the Southern District of Texas. The indictment also appears to charge a series of acts in 2021, which are unrelated to the charged conduct, to pull the purported scheme within the statute of limitations, which, according to the Indictment, occurred almost exclusively in Mexico, in Spanish, and involved Mario Avila, not Mr. Rovirosa. The indictment only hints at Mr. Rovirosa’s involvement in the vaguest terms
and imprints the prosecutor’s own interpretation of text messages within the indictment to try to tie Mr. Rovirosa to the nebulous allegations. This novel effort to summarily and improperly attribute texts to and from parties as referencing Mr. Rovirosa and insert his name, even though his name is not explicitly in the text messages, concedes that only with the prosecutor’s CliffsNotes could anyone figure out how Mr. Rovirosa is involved in the purported scheme. This improper telegraphing of the government’s interpretation of text messages is wholly prejudicial to the defendant, misleading and inaccurate surplusage that will be subject to a separate motion.Unfortunately, the way the Indictment is drafted makes it virtually impossible for Mr. Rovirosa to address these significant infirmities and hampered preparation of his defense for trial, which is set for October 6, 2025. A Bill of Particulars is necessary to allow Mr. Rovirosa to prepare adequately for trial, avoid surprise, and protect against double jeopardy. The Constitution requires the government prosecutors to give Mr. Rovirosa notice of the conduct he undertook, which the government says violates the law. It has not done so, and it must.”
