Overview: US charges target Smartmatic in a bribery conspiracy
Federal prosecutors in Florida have charged voting technology company Smartmatic, its parent SGO Corporation, and three former executives in an ongoing criminal case that centers on what authorities describe as a foreign bribery conspiracy. The indictment, filed in 2024 and updated on October 16, 2025, alleges that executives used a slush fund to funnel bribes to a Philippine election official to secure business for Smartmatic. The charges include money laundering and related offenses tied to over-invoicing and disguising payments within ordinary financial documents.
Who is charged and what is alleged
The defendants include Smartmatic’s parent company, SGO Corporation, along with three former Smartmatic executives. Prosecutors say the scheme involved payments totaling about $1 million between 2015 and 2018 to former Commission on Elections chair Andres Bautista, a defendant in the case, in exchange for favorable treatment and business opportunities. The government contends the bribes were routed through a slush fund created by inflating the cost of voting machine services for the 2016 Philippine elections, then obscured through coded language in financial records.
Legal posture and responses
Smartmatic dismissed the charges as factually and legally incorrect and indicated it would vigorously contest them. In a statement, the company asserted that U.S. prosecutors have been misled by political interests and vowed to prevail. The company stressed its cooperation with authorities and emphasized that the charges are, in its view, politically motivated and unjust.
Meanwhile, the defendants named in the indictment, including Smartmatic’s president and co-founder, Roger Alejandro Pinate Martinez, have pleaded not guilty. Pinate has publicly questioned the indictment’s legal sufficiency and requested a dismissal, arguing that the charges fail to allege a crime with adequate factual support.
Context within Smartmatic’s wider legal battles
The bribery case unfolds as Smartmatic is simultaneously pursuing a high-profile defamation lawsuit against Fox Corporation and certain commentators. Smartmatic alleges that false public claims, including assertions that its machines influenced the 2020 U.S. presidential election, damaged the company’s reputation and caused financial harm. The company seeks a multibillion-dollar verdict, arguing that the defendants propagated misinformation that discredited its technology and business practices.
Prosecutors have indicated that the money-laundering and foreign-bribery counts arise in relation to international business and political influence, highlighting the complex cross-border nature of the allegations. Court filings describe a pattern in which payments were mischaracterized in corporate books to conceal illicit benefits and the true source of the funds.
Impact on the voting-tech industry and public trust
News of the charges touches a sensitive nerve in the consensus around election technology. While Smartmatic has argued that it supplies trusted systems for multiple countries, the allegations of bribery, overbilling, and schemes to secure deals can fuel skepticism about private contractors involved in critical democratic infrastructure. The case underscores the heightened scrutiny such firms face regarding governance, transparency, and compliance with anti-corruption laws.
Observers note that, regardless of the outcome, the litigation may influence how government procurement in the electoral sphere is conducted, including due-diligence processes, contract structuring, and oversight mechanisms designed to deter corruption. The court will determine whether prosecutors can prove the alleged conspiracy and related criminal activity beyond a reasonable doubt.
What comes next
The Miami-based proceedings are ongoing, with hearings and potential trial dates likely to follow as the parties prepare their positions. As Smartmatic defends itself against both criminal charges and civil actions in other arenas, the case remains a focal point for debates around transparency, accountability, and the role of private vendors in safeguarding electoral integrity.
