Former Smartmatic executives, Roger Alejandro Piñate Martínez and Jorge Miguel Vásquez, have managed to extend the judicial process against them in the Court for the Southern District of Florida, aiming to benefit from Donald Trump’s proposal to repeal the foreign bribery law.
Piñate and Vásquez are accused of bribing Juan Andrés Donato Bautista, former president of the Philippine Commission on Elections, to secure COMELEC contracts. These bribes were allegedly paid to obtain and retain the supply of voting machines and electoral services for the 2016 Philippine elections.
Subsequently, they allegedly laundered the proceeds from the bribery scheme through bank accounts located in Asia, Europe, and the United States, leading to each of them being charged with conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and a substantial violation of the FCPA, crimes for which they could face up to 20 years in prison.
The Anti-Bribery Law
Now, Piñate and Vásquez are seeking to benefit from Donald Trump’s proposal that suggests decriminalizing foreign bribery payments.
An executive order from February 10, 2025, suspended the enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by the Department of Justice for 180 days, aiming to review existing investigations and compliance measures under the law, to “prioritize U.S. interests, American economic competitiveness with other nations, and the efficient use of federal resources for law enforcement.” During this review period, the prosecution cannot initiate new investigations or FCPA compliance measures unless individual exceptions are justified.
However, it is important to clarify that the FCPA has not been repealed and bribery remains illegal, and any offenses committed during the review period are subject to post-Trump era enforcement, in accordance with the FCPA’s five-year statute of limitations.
HSI agents notified Jorge Miguel Vásquez on October 21, 2019, at Miami International Airport, that he was a target of a federal investigation. As a result, he hired attorneys and agreed to speak with the government on October 30 of that year. Before the interview, he signed an agreement and accepted the terms, which included the obligation not to deliberately withhold information or commit any law violations after signing. The prosecution accuses Vásquez of destroying evidence.
Preventing Vásquez’s Presence During Witness Testimonies
Piñate and Vásquez seek to benefit from Donald Trump’s proposal that suggests decriminalizing foreign bribery payments.
On March 7, 2025, the prosecution submitted additional arguments to the Court for the Southern District of Florida regarding their request to take depositions under Rule 15 in the case against Roger Alejandro Piñate Martínez and Jorge Miguel Vásquez.
The government presents Vásquez as an executive of a company with operations in Taiwan, who allegedly participated in the creation of illegal funds through overpricing voting machines intended for the 2016 elections in the Philippines. These funds would be used to bribe a Filipino official.
Vásquez is accused of obstructing justice by instructing a witness in Taiwan to delete relevant emails and files after being notified of the investigation. This led to the prosecution’s request for witness depositions in Taiwan to occur without the physical presence of Vásquez due to the risk of further obstruction or intimidation.
The Facts
Jorge Miguel Vásquez was an executive at Company 2 in Boca Raton, Florida, overseeing the global development and manufacturing of hardware for its parent company, Company 1, for which he acted as a representative to Supplier A, an electronics manufacturer based in Taiwan. Vásquez was the head of Company 1’s operations in Taiwan.
Supplier A and Company 1 formed a joint venture that obtained contracts to supply voting machines to the Philippines. Vásquez and his accomplices allegedly generated illegal funds with Supplier A by over billing the cost of the voting machines.
The funds would have been used to pay bribes to Juan Andrés Donato Bautista, a Filipino government official who was president of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in the Philippines.
Vásquez and his accomplices transferred money from the illicit funds through shell companies and offshore bank accounts to specific recipients, including co-conspirator Bautista.
Vásquez and his accomplices hid the nature of the illicit funds and the payments made, using personal email accounts, encrypted messaging on WhatsApp, coded language, and fraudulent contracts and false loan agreements to legitimize the transfers.
In November 2015, the Executive of Supplier A took control of the company, overseeing Witnesses 1, 2, and 3. Vásquez communicated directly with this executive via personal emails about issues related to the illicit funds, including instructions for making transfers, confirmations of receipt, and discussions of fund accounting.
Obstruction of Justice
The prosecution accuses Jorge Miguel Vásquez of obstruction of justice.
These additional arguments by the prosecution are based on the accusation that Vásquez obstructed justice after being notified of the federal investigation.
The evidence deleted by Vásquez included critical information, such as evidence of payments made to Bautista’s shell company, Baumann Enterprises Limited. Upon his return to the U.S., he appeared to cooperate with the government on multiple occasions. However, he never admitted or disclosed his role in the destruction of evidence, despite being obligated to be completely truthful.
Witness 2 is the mother of the Executive of Supplier A, who was closely associated with the business despite not being an employee and controlled the accounts from which payments for the illicit funds were made.
Witnesses 1 and 3 are long-time employees of the Executive of Supplier A, the first being his accountant and the second his sales manager.
The Executive of Supplier A communicated with Witnesses 1 and 2 about matters related to the illicit funds and with Witness 3 regarding Company 1 issues.
The government believes that Vásquez’s obstruction of justice by causing the destruction of evidence in Taiwan while pretending to cooperate demonstrates a clear disregard for his legal obligations.
The prosecution believes that there is no reason to think that Vásquez would comply with a court order regarding the witnesses while he is outside the United States, especially in Taiwan.
Thus, the government requested that depositions abroad take place without the physical presence of Vásquez.
Piñate Requests Depositions from Foreign Witnesses
On March 11, 2025, Curtis B. Miner, attorney for the defendant Roger Alejandro Piñate, filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida requesting the disclosure of transcripts from foreign witnesses made before the grand jury in the case against him.
Piñate argued that he needs the transcripts to determine the necessity of Rule 15 depositions, especially concerning a foreign witness for whom the prosecution has not provided information. The defendant claims he has an urgent need for this information to avoid a possible injustice and to adequately prepare his defense.
The accused sought a court order to publish the transcripts due to the complexities of coordinating depositions abroad and the trial schedule. The defense argues that the lack of access to this information could result in an injustice for Piñate by preventing him from preserving the testimony of material and unreachable witnesses.
He emphasized the difficulty and time involved in coordinating depositions abroad, as well as the court’s desire to have these done in a single trip. For this, it is crucial to identify which foreign witnesses are material and beyond the reach of U.S. jurisdiction.
The trial is scheduled to commence on October 6, 2025, which makes it urgent to act promptly to coordinate the foreign depositions.
Request for Extension
On March 12, 2025, Roger Piñate’s defense responded before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in support of a joint motion with Jorge Vásquez to extend the deadlines for filing dispositive motions.
The government does not oppose this request for a 30-day extension, which is sought to give the defendants additional time to prepare such documents. The defense formally requests that the current deadline be pushed back to April 28, 2025, allowing the government until May 19, 2025, to respond. The document also includes information from Piñate’s attorneys and a certificate of service verifying electronic submission to the court.
Order for Deadline Extension
Judge Kathleen M. Williams of the Southern District of Florida approved the joint request to extend procedural deadlines, allowing the defendant until April 28, 2025, to file decisive motions, while the prosecution must respond by May 19, 2025.
This deadline extension delays the procedural schedule of the case against Roger Alejandro Piñate Martínez, providing him more time to prepare and submit potential motions for dismissal of the case or to address fundamental legal issues.
The prosecution will have a later deadline to respond to these motions, an extension that may be necessary given the complexity of the case.
Changes to SGO Corporation Limited
On February 3, 2023, a change in directorship for SGO Corporation Limited, registered under number 07477910, was reported to the UK Companies Registry, indicating that Roger Alejandro Piñate Martinez modified his details. The effective date of this change was February 2, 2023, and it was specified that Piñate’s usual country of residence is now the United States.
Watch in Sin Filtros “Perkins Rocha and the Struggle for the Freedom of Political Prisoners in Venezuela”: