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.”
Recently, Oztemel filed a 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.”
In summary fashion, Oztemel states:
“A judgment of acquittal is warranted for a simple reason: the government failed to carry its burden to show that Defendant Glenn Oztemel committed any criminal offense within the statutory limitations period or was a knowing and willful participant in any conspiracy that existed within that period. To the contrary, the statute of limitations precludes liability for any conduct prior to August 2017, and the government’s efforts to establish Oztemel’s guilt based on transfers and emails in 2018 hit a wall at trial—where the record undercut any assertion that this charged conduct (which occurred years after the key events addressed in testimony) was unlawful. The government also failed to prove its more fundamental claim that Oztemel entered into an unlawful agreement in the first place. Based on the record at trial, no reasonable juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the government carried its burden as to these crucial elements.
Alternatively, the Court should grant a new trial. First, there were three material errors in the jury instructions, each of which impermissibly allowed the jury to convict for conduct that is not unlawful and each of which implicated a core factual dispute: (1) errors in conflating the elements of distinct theories of substantive FCPA liability; (2) errors in the standard for joining a conspiracy; and (3) errors in the limitations period instructions. Second, the limits imposed on opening statements hamstrung the defense, favored the government, and caused substantial prejudice. Finally, the Giglio violation revealed mid-trial was not properly resolved and robbed the defense of its best chance to impeach the government’s main witness. Taken separately and together, each of these points warrants a new trial. Leaving the verdict in place in these circumstances would work the very injustice that Rule 33 is intended to remedy.”
