In September 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. (See here for the prior post).
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.”
In December 2025, Oztemel was sentenced by Judge Kari Dooley (D. Conn) to 15 months in prison. (See here).
Recently, Judge Dooley granted Oztemel’s motion to remain on bond pending
appeal of his conviction to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
The ruling states:
The Defendant challenges two aspects of the jury instructions given at trial. The first challenge is to the Court’s aiding and abetting instruction as it relates to the FCPA counts and the extent to which the Court “charged out” of the case the issue of “domestic concern.” The second
has to do with the failure to include an anonymity instruction as to which subsection of the FCPA the jury concluded had been violated. These two issues intertwine because the question of which subsection was violated, may in turn, implicate the aiding and abetting charge. While the parties disagree as to the extent to which these issues were properly preserved, the Court is of the view that the issues, in an area of the law that is not well-developed, are substantial.In granting this motion, the Court does not revisit the decisions it has already made and does not opine on the question of whether the issues were properly preserved. Nor does the Court predict the outcome of the appeal. However, the question of whether the FCPA provides alternative
“means” for committing an offense, as opposed to separate crimes with separate elements, has not been addressed by any Circuit Court of Appeals. And although the Court applied what little guidance there is from other contexts, the outcome on this issue is not obvious. If the Defendant prevails on this issue alone, at a minimum, the case will likely be remanded for a new trial. Similarly, whether the Court’s failure to give an agency instruction in connection with the aiding and abetting charge was error, and if so, whether it was harmless, as found by the Court is also a substantial question. This Court has acknowledged on multiple occasions that the case was factually and legally complicated and raised a number of complex issues, some that had not previously been decided by the Second Circuit.Having decided that two of the issues raised on appeal are “substantial” the Court turns to whether the questions are integral to the merits of the conviction such that “a contrary appellate holding is likely to require reversal of the conviction or a new trial.’” As discussed above, if the jury instructions were incorrect, either ecause they were required to include an anonymity instruction or because the aiding and abetting instruction was incomplete, misleading or confusing, it appears, a re-trial would likely be required as to all counts of the Indictment.”
