In Fall 2024, Glenn Oztemel (previously employed by Arcadia Fuels Ltd. and Freepoint Commodities LLC) was found guilty at trial of FCPA and related offenses in connection with a Brazil bribery scheme.
As stated in the DOJ release: “According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, Oztemel […] paid bribes to officials of Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras), the Brazilian state-owned oil and gas company, to obtain lucrative contracts for Arcadia Fuels Ltd. (Arcadia) and Freepoint Commodities LLC (Freepoint). […] With the assistance of others, Oztemel paid and caused the payment of bribes to Petrobras officials for their assistance in helping Arcadia and Freepoint to obtain and retain fuel oil contracts with Petrobras and by providing Oztemel and others with confidential information regarding Petrobras’ fuel oil business. Oztemel and his co-conspirators caused Arcadia and Freepoint to make corrupt payments — disguised as purported consulting fees and commissions — to a third party intermediary and agent, Eduardo Innecco, 74, knowing that Innecco would pay a portion of those funds to Brazilian officials, including to Houston-based Petrobras trader Rodrigo Berkowitz.”
This prior post summarized Oztemel’s January 25th motion “for the entry of a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, or, in the alternative, an order of a new trial pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.”
Earlier this week, the DOJ filed its response in opposition to the motion and in doing so stated as follows:
“As counsel for Glenn Oztemel is aware, this case is subject to review by the Attorney General pursuant to the President’s February 10, 2025 Executive Order (Exec. Order No. 14,209, 90 Fed. Reg. 9,587 (Feb. 14, 2025)). The Government will advise the Court of any updates as soon as it is in position to do so.”
The DOJ’s response states in summary fashion as follows:
“On September 26, 2024, following a three-week trial, a jury convicted defendant Glenn Oztemel of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), three counts of violating the FCPA, money laundering conspiracy, and two counts of money laundering. The jury heard from nine government witnesses, including the foreign government official Glenn Oztemel bribed, and five defense witnesses. In addition, the Court admitted over 400 exhibits, including email communications seized from Glenn Oztemel’s personal email account, encrypted messages between Glenn Oztemel and his co-conspirators, and nearly eight years of sham “consulting” invoices approved by Glenn Oztemel. After deliberating for approximately a day and a half, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts.
Glenn Oztemel moves for a judgment of acquittal or, in the alternative, for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 29 and 33. See ECF No. 379, 379-1 (the “Motion”). In asking the Court to set aside the jury’s verdict, Glenn Oztemel argues that the government failed to carry its burden of proof. But Glenn Oztemel himself fails to carry the “heavy” burden required by the Second Circuit for Rule 29 acquittal, a standard that “is exceedingly deferential” to the jury verdict and requires the Court to sustain a conviction “if viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Ho, 984 F.3d 191, 199 (2d Cir. 2020) (cleaned up) (emphasis in original). Here, substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict, including documents and testimony that tie the 2018 substantive offenses to Glenn Oztemel’s participation in a nearly decade-long scheme to offer, promise, and pay bribes to government officials in Brazil. Glenn Oztemel’s Motion asks the Court simply to disregard this evidence and the deferential legal standard, and to resolve various competing inferences—inferences that have already been rejected by the jury—in his favor. In addition, the Motion is premised upon an incorrect application of the FCPA, one that has already been rejected by the Court and would contravene the statute. The Court should therefore deny the Rule 29 motion.
The Court should likewise deny Glenn Oztemel’s motion for a new trial under Rule 33, which is based on claimed errors in the jury instructions and in the Court’s rulings on opening statements and purported Giglio violations. The Court ruled on these issues during trial and gave Glenn Oztemel the opportunity to mitigate any perceived prejudice from its rulings, an opportunity he declined. For these reasons and more, Glenn Oztemel cannot show a “manifest injustice” suggesting a “real concern that an innocent person may have been convicted,” as is required under Rule 33. United States v. Aguilar, 737 F.3d 251, 264 (2d Cir. 2013). The jury found Glenn Oztemel guilty on all counts; the Court should uphold the verdict and deny the Motion.”
