A former executive of the UK-based voting machine company Smartmatic says that there are inconsistencies in the US Department of Justice’s Mutual Legal Assistance Timeline (MLAT) that could have repercussions for his case.
The company’s co-founder, Roger Alejandro Piñate Martinez, was indicted in August 2024 alongside two other former executives and a former elections official in the Philippines for allegedly participating in a bribery scheme to win equipment contracts for the country’s 2016 elections.
On 16 October, a federal grand jury indicted the company itself, more than a year after its former executives were first charged. Smartmatic pleaded not guilty to foreign bribery charges on 20 November.
Counsel to Piñate said that he needs to see the requests to “verify the government’s razor-thin calculations”. According to his 17 December motion, Piñate was indicted eight years after the alleged conduct with a substantive violation of the FCPA, which has a five-year statute of limitations.
The DOJ said it had an extra three years to bring charges because it made multiple MLAT requests, according to court filings. “But even under its own math, the government waited until nearly the last possible moment to indict,” counsel to Piñate said.
Piñate first asked the government to turn over its MLAT requests and correspondence in April. A Miami federal judge partially granted his request in October, and prosecutors produced MLAT requests sent to the Philippines, Singapore and Switzerland.
“A review of that production has confirmed the central premise of Mr. Piñate’s original motion, namely, that he cannot blindly trust the government’s tolling calculations and representations,” counsel to Piñate said.
In a letter, Singapore said it produced all of the requested documents 13 days before the DOJ said final action had been taken, his lawyers argued. They added that while the government said Switzerland had been unresponsive until August 2023, discovery in other proceedings showed that a Homeland Security Investigations agent had received documents in December 2021.
“Inconsistencies like this appear endemic throughout the tolling process,” counsel to Piñate said.
“Given that the government indicted Mr. Piñate on multiple counts with just days remaining under the statute of limitations, inconsistencies like this could be dispositive,” they argued.
“For a foundational defense like the statute of limitations, Mr. Piñate is entitled to review all MLAT requests and correspondence to confirm whether there are any additional inconsistencies affecting the government’s tolling calculations,” his counsel said.
The DOJ and counsel to Piñate did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Counsel to Smartmatic
Holland & Knight
Barbara Martinez and Wifredo Ferrer in Miami
Alston & Bird
Jenny Kramer in New York City and Kristine Brown in Atlanta
Counsel to Juan Andres Doñato Bautista
Julia Stepanova in Miami
Barnes & Thornburg
G Scott Hulsey in Atlanta
Counsel to Roger Alejandro Piñate Martinez
Colson Hicks Eidson
Curtis Miner and Thomas Kroeger in Coral Gables
Morgan Lewis & Bockius
Justin Weitz and Sandra Moser in Washington, DC
Counsel to Jorge Miguel Vasquez
Frank Rubino in Coral Gables
Markus Moss
Lauren Field Krasnoff in Miami
For the DOJ
Joshua Paster, Michael DiLorenzo, Connor Mullin and Robert Emery in Miami and Evan Schlom, Jill Simon and Alexander Kramer in Washington, DC