Federal prosecutors have brought sweeping new charges against Smartmatic, a global voting technology company, accusing it of orchestrating a multi-million dollar bribery and money laundering scheme to secure lucrative election contracts in the Philippines. The indictment, filed on October 16, 2025, in a federal court in Miami, marks a dramatic escalation in a case that has already ensnared several of the company’s former top executives and sent shockwaves through the international election technology industry.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Smartmatic and several of its former leaders, including co-founder Roger Piñate and former vice president Jorge Miguel Vasquez, conspired to pay more than $1 million in bribes to Juan Andres Donato Bautista, the former chairman of the Philippines’ Commission on Elections. The alleged payments, made between 2015 and 2018, were intended to secure more than $182 million in contracts to supply voting machines and related services for the country’s pivotal 2016 presidential election.
The prosecutors allege that the scheme was elaborate and meticulously concealed. As detailed in court documents and reported by the Miami Herald, Smartmatic executives are accused of overbilling the Philippine government for voting machines, then funneling the excess funds through a complex web of overseas shell companies, fake invoices, and sham loan agreements. The illicit payments, authorities say, were laundered through bank accounts in Asia, Europe, and the United States—including accounts in the Southern District of Florida, where the case is being prosecuted.
Roger Piñate, who once served as Smartmatic’s president and remains a shareholder, surrendered to authorities in August 2024 and pleaded not guilty. He was granted an $8.5 million bond. Vasquez also surrendered, pleaded not guilty, and was released on a $1 million bond. Both men, alongside Bautista and another former executive, Elie Moreno, face charges of conspiracy to commit foreign corruption and money laundering. If convicted, each could face up to 20 years in prison, with Piñate and Vasquez also facing an additional five years for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
The federal investigation reportedly began after Bautista’s wife alerted the Philippine National Bureau of Investigation in August 2017 to her husband’s unexplained wealth, estimated at roughly one billion Philippine Pesos—about $20 million. The couple was in the midst of a divorce at the time, and her tip-off triggered a broader probe that eventually drew in U.S. authorities. According to AP News, the indictment alleges that Bautista was the direct recipient of the bribes, which were disguised as legitimate business expenses and routed through multiple international banks.
The criminal case has also drawn attention to Smartmatic’s business practices beyond the Philippines. In August 2025, prosecutors sought the court’s permission to introduce evidence that revenue from a $300 million contract with Los Angeles County—intended to modernize the county’s voting systems—was diverted into a slush fund allegedly controlled by Piñate. Prosecutors say this fund was managed through a network of overseas entities and used for purposes unrelated to the Los Angeles contract. A hearing on this and related evidence, including allegations that Piñate secretly bribed Venezuela’s longtime election chief by gifting her a luxury home in Caracas, is scheduled for November 2025. However, these specific accusations are not included in the most recent superseding indictment.
Smartmatic, which was founded in 2000 by Piñate and fellow Venezuelans Antonio Mugica and Alfredo José Anzola, initially rose to prominence after being chosen by then-President Hugo Chávez to overhaul Venezuela’s voting infrastructure in 2004. The company’s early success in Latin America helped it expand rapidly, eventually providing election technology in 25 countries across the globe, from Argentina to Zambia. Smartmatic further cemented its international presence by acquiring Sequoia Voting Systems in 2006—though it later announced it had divested its stake in that company.
Despite its global reach, Smartmatic was little known to most Americans until the aftermath of the 2020 U.S. presidential election. In the wake of Joe Biden’s victory over Donald Trump, the company found itself at the center of a firestorm of conspiracy theories. Fox News and other right-wing outlets aired unsubstantiated claims that Smartmatic had helped rig the election—a narrative that the company has vehemently denied. Smartmatic’s response was swift: it filed a $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News in 2021, arguing that the network’s false reporting had devastated its business. The company has since settled similar lawsuits with Newsmax for $40 million and One America News for an undisclosed sum, but the Fox News case remains ongoing in New York.
In the face of the new criminal charges, Smartmatic has strenuously denied any wrongdoing. In a statement quoted by the Associated Press and New York Times, the company said, “This is again, targeted, political, and unjust. Smartmatic will continue to stand by its people and principles. We will not be intimidated by those pulling the strings of power.” A company spokesman added, “We believe the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of Florida has been misled and politically influenced by powerful interests, despite our extensive cooperation with the government.” Smartmatic maintains that it will contest the charges and is confident it will prevail in court.
Fox News, for its part, has argued that it was simply reporting on newsworthy events and has vigorously defended itself against Smartmatic’s defamation claims. The network eventually aired a segment refuting the false allegations after being contacted by Smartmatic’s legal team. In court, Fox has maintained that any business losses suffered by Smartmatic stemmed from its own internal misconduct—not from negative media coverage.
As the legal battles intensify on multiple fronts, the case against Smartmatic has become a focal point for debates about election integrity, corporate accountability, and the influence of politics on law enforcement. The charges laid out by the Justice Department paint a picture of a company willing to cross ethical and legal boundaries for profit, while Smartmatic insists it is the victim of a politically motivated campaign designed to destroy its reputation.
The next chapter in this high-stakes saga will unfold in November, when the court hears arguments about the alleged slush fund and the Venezuela bribery claims. With billions of dollars and the future of a major player in the global election technology market at stake, all eyes will be on Miami’s federal courthouse. For now, the only certainty is that the controversy surrounding Smartmatic is far from over.