Testing innocence in a criminal matter can impose substantial burdens on a defendant.
Particularly when that defendant is a foreign national in the United States separated from his family.
As highlighted in this prior post, in September 2019 the DOJ announced the unsealing of a criminal indictment against (among others) Paulo Casqueiro Murta in connection with an alleged bribery scheme involving Venezuela’s state-owned and state-controlled energy company, PDVSA. According to the DOJ, Murta (a citizen of Portugal) provided financial services to various co-defendants (including former employees of PDVSA) in connection with various bribery schemes and he was charged with directly violating or assisting others in violating the FCPA and money laundering laws.
As highlighted in this prior post, in July 2022 Judge Kenneth Hoyt (S.D. Tex) granted Murta’s motion to dismiss the charges based on lack of jurisdiction, lack of due process, vagueness, and statute of limitation issues. Because of these various reasons, Judge Hoyt found it unnecessary to decide Murta’s motion to dismiss based on a violation of the Speedy Trial Act.
As highlighted in this prior post, the DOJ appealed the dismissal (along with a related dismissal of a co-defendant) and in February 2023 the Fifth Circuit reinstated FCPA and related charges against Murta (and a co-defendant) holding that – at this stage of the proceedings – the indictment was good enough and also holding that the term “agent” in the FCPA is not unconstitutional.
Back at the trial court level, Murta renewed his motion to dismiss the criminal charges based on a violation of the Speedy Trial Act (an issue – as mentioned above – was not addressed in the original motion to dismiss given the other reasons for dismissal). The judge granted the motion to dismiss and found bad faith by the government stating that the “Government’s word and conduct breached the wall of credibility.” (See here for the prior post).
The Government again appealed the second dismissal and in November 2023 the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded, finding that based on the trial court’s invalidation of its own Speedy Trial Continuance, the Speedy Trial Act been violated, but that the trial court had not conducted a proper analysis of whether the dismissal should have been with or without prejudice.
Recently, Murta decided to plead guilty and as stated by his counsel (Khalil & Lake) in the sentencing memo “Mr. Murta has decided not to fight any longer.”
The sentencing memo states in pertinent part:
“For the last three years, Mr. Murta has experienced a unique degree of suffering, far beyond what is typical for pretrial defendants. Since being extradited to this country in July 2021, he has not seen his children, his grandchildren, or his parents. Those three years of suffering have now been compounded. A few weeks ago, Mr. Murta’s mother experienced a stroke that has left her hospitalized, unable to speak coherently, and facing a grim prognosis. Because of bond conditions imposed in this case, Mr. Murta has been unable to leave this country to be at his mother’s bedside.”
[…]
Mr. Murta is not from the United States. He and all his family are from Portugal. Before his extradition, Mr. Murta had rarely set foot in the United States, but now, he has been confined to this country for nearly three years. Mr. Murta has not only been separated from his family, but he has also been unable to work — he has no work authorization in this country — which has devastated his financial condition. He has suffered enough.
[…]
Mr. Murta is pleading guilty to conspiracy; but for the better part of three years, he pleaded for a speedy trial and waited through multiple trial delays (none of which were requested by him), two dismissals with prejudice, and two appeals. After that long wait, he recently gave up fighting, having decided to plead guilty and bring this case to a close. At trial, the parties would have disagreed sharply about many facts and some of the Government’s broader theories. But Mr. Murta has decided not to fight any longer.
[…]
Mr. Murta has patiently endured the last three years while this U.S. case has been pending, and there is no need to impose any additional punishment.
Mr. Murta spent nine months in pretrial custody, where he suffered due to inadequate health care that caused permanent degradation of his hearing and his general health. Even after the Government changed course and agreed to bond, Mr. Murta spent four months subject to home confinement and location monitoring through an electronic ankle monitor. In short, he has effectively served 13 months already — which should be considered in determining an appropriate sentence.
After those 13 months, Mr. Murta has spent 2 more years confined to this country, which is not his home. Unlike most defendants, Mr. Murta is only in this country because of this case. As a result, he has been separated from his family, prohibited from earning a living, and prevented from accessing medical care in his home country where he has health insurance. He has also missed four of his children’s graduations. And last month, his mother suffered a stroke and received a very poor prognosis for the future — through it all, Mr. Murta has remained here, where he receives updates by phone and email, unable to be at his mother’s bedside.
Mr. Murta’s time in this country has, in many ways, been harsher than for a typical U.S.-based defendant under house arrest. Normally, defendants are permitted to maintain employment on house arrest, but Mr. Murta cannot because the Government extradited him here without giving him legal status. As a consequence, he has no work authorization. Even if he did, he would be unable to establish himself here, given that all his contacts and his experience are in Europe. Mr. Murta’s finances have been devastated by these last three years. He has been paying medical expenses without health insurance, legal fees, and regular living expenses, all without a job to offset those expenses.
[…]
Under the unique circumstances of this case, a time-served sentence is the just result. There is no need for additional punishment. Mr. Murta is prepared to return to Portugal.”
In its sentencing memorandum, the government requested that the court sentence Murta to 60 months incarceration, yet also acknowledged “that Defendant Murta has a health condition that has worsened during his time in the United States and that his mother is seriously ill.” Thus, the government did not oppose Murta’s request that the court consider these factors in sentencing.
Earlier this week, Judge Gray Miller (S.D. Tex) sentenced Murta to time served, ordered that Murta’s passports be returned to him, and placed no further restrictions on his travel.
Pursuant to the plea agreement, Murta was ordered forfeit $105,000.
Khalil & Lake provided the following statement: “We are gratified that Judge Miller was sensitive to our client’s personal predicament and health situation, which have taken a severe toll on him over the last three years.”
