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).
Recently, Vasquez filed a motion requesting that the “Court order the release of the transcript of Special Agent Cole Almeida’s testimony before the Grand Jury.”
In pertinent part, the motion states:
At a hearing on March 4, 2025, the Court told the parties that “at some point I am going to ask the Government to provide the testimony of the agent before the Grand Jury prior to trial…” Mr. Vasquez asks that the Court order that production now, instead of waiting for the eve of trial.
Prior to the return of the indictment in this case, the Government notified Mr. Vasquez that he was a target of its investigation into a bribery and money laundering scheme. Mr. Vasquez, with previous counsel, met with the Government and Special Agents through 2019 and 2020, subject to a written proffer agreement. During these meetings, Mr. Vasquez truthfully answered the Government’s questions. Mr. Vasquez never admitted to knowledge of a bribery scheme, never used the term “slush fund,” and never agreed that payments he received were either
“kickbacks” or “embezzlement.”After the proffer sessions, HSI Special Agent (“SA”) Cole Almeida wrote reports of investigation (“ROIs”) purportedly documenting Mr. Vasquez’s statements and summarizing his interpretations and impressions of the meetings with Mr. Vasquez. While the ROIs begin with a caution that the reports are non-verbatim accounts, the reports also attribute direct quotes to Mr. Vasquez by using quotation marks or alleging that Mr. Vasquez “stated” a particular term or conclusion. The Government has produced the ROIs from this meeting, as well as SA Almeida’s notes, to the defense. The mischaracterization of Mr. Vasquez’s statements, in both the ROIs and the contemporaneous notes, raised more questions than they answered. One specific question that Mr. Vasquez must ask is whether these mischaracterizations and misquotations were also presented to the Grand Jury to obtain an indictment.
In December of 2024, prior defense counsel filed a motion concerning the misstatements in SA Almeida’s reports, requesting the Court exclude the statements from trial and order production of the rough notes and drafts of the reports. Mr. Vasquez was understandably alarmed that SA Almeida memorialized purported confessions to conspiring to violate the FCPA and to embezzling funds from Smartmatic – even though such confessions never happened.
In response to Mr. Vasquez’s motion, the Government produced the rough notes but argued that any further action by the Court was premature or unwarranted. Of understandable and significant concern to the defense, the Government agreed that Mr. Vasquez never uttered the words “bribe,” “kickback,” or “embezzlement,” despite those words being attributed to him in SA Almeida’s ROIs.
At a hearing on the motion, the Government advised the Court that it did not intend to introduce Mr. Vasquez’s statements during its case-in-chief. Given this representation, the Court determined that there was no need to address the remedies sought by the defense at that time. However, the Court conveyed to the Government that it expected SA Almeida’s Grand Jury testimony would be disclosed to the defense. The Government clarified to the Court that SA Almeida’s testimony would not constitute Jencks material if SA Almeida was not called as a witness. Despite this clarification, the Court stated, “As I have indicated, at some point, I am going to ask the Government to provide the testimony of the agent before the Grandy Jury prior to trial but I’m not asking them to do that now.” Mr. Vasquez has already established the need for the testimony, the Court has already made clear it should be turned over, and this Motion simply and respectfully asks the Court to order the production of the transcript now.”
