Smartmatic, the elections-technology company suing Fox News for defamation, is now contending with a growing list of criminal allegations against some of its executives — including a new claim by federal prosecutors that a “slush fund” for bribing foreign officials was financed partly with proceeds from the sale of voting machines in Los Angeles.

The new details about the criminal case surfaced this month in court filings in Miami, where the company’s co-founder, Roger Pinate, and two Venezuelan colleagues were charged last year with bribing officials in the Philippines in exchange for a contract to help run that country’s 2016 presidential elections. Pinate, who no longer works for Smartmatic, has pleaded not guilty.

To buttress the case, federal prosecutors are seeking to introduce evidence they argue shows that some of the nearly $300 million the company was paid by Los Angeles County to help modernize its voting systems was diverted to a fund controlled by Pinate through the use of overseas shell companies, fake invoices and other means.

Smartmatic itself hasn’t been charged with breaking any laws, nor have U.S. prosecutors accused Smartmatic or its executives of tampering with election results. Similarly, they haven’t accused Los Angeles County officials of wrongdoing, or said whether they were even aware of the alleged bribery scheme. County officials say they weren’t.

But the case against Pinate is unfolding as Smartmatic is pursuing a $2.7 billion lawsuit accusing Fox of defamation for airing false claims that the company helped rig the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Fox says it was legitimately reporting newsworthy allegations.

Smartmatic said the Justice Department’s new filing was filled with “misrepresentations” and is “untethered from reality.”

“Let us be clear: Smartmatic wins business because we’re the best at what we do,” the company said in a statement. “We operate ethically and abide by all laws always, both in Los Angeles County and every jurisdiction where we operate.”

Fox questions Smartmatic’s dealings in LA

Still, Fox has gone to court to try to get more information about L.A. County’s dealings with Smartmatic. The network has long tried to leverage the bribery allegations to undermine Smartmatic’s narrative about its business prospects – a key component in calculating any potential damages — and portray it as a scandal-plagued company brought low by its own legal problems, not Fox’s broadcasts.

South Florida-based Smartmatic was founded more than two decades ago by a group of Venezuelans who found early success working for the government of the late Hugo Chavez, a devotee of electronic voting. The company later expanded globally, providing voting machines and other technology to help carry out elections in 25 countries, from Argentina to Zambia.

It was awarded its contract to help with Los Angeles County elections in 2018. The contract, which Smartmatic continues to service, gave the company an important foothold in what was then a fast-expanding U.S. voting-technology market.

But Smartmatic has said its business tanked after Fox News gave President Donald Trump’s lawyers a platform to paint the company as part of a conspiracy to steal the 2020 election.

Fox itself eventually aired a piece refuting the allegations after Smartmatic’s lawyers complained, but it has aggressively defended itself against the defamation lawsuit in New York.

“Facing imminent financial collapse and indictment, Smartmatic saw a litigation lottery ticket in Fox News’s coverage of the 2020 election,” the network’s lawyers said in a court filing.

Smartmatic has disputed Fox’s characterization in court filings as “lies” and “another attempt to divert attention from its long-standing campaign of falsehoods and defamation.”

LA clerk deposed about trip, gifted meal

As part of its effort to investigate Smartmatic’s work in Los Angeles, Fox has sued to force LA County Clerk Dean Logan to hand over public records about his dealings with Smartmatic’s U.S. affiliate.

Fox’s lawyers also questioned Logan in a deposition about a dinner a Smartmatic executive bought for him at the members-only Magic Castle club and restaurant in Los Angeles and a Smartmatic-paid trip that Logan made to Taiwan in 2019 to oversee the manufacturing of equipment by a Smartmatic vendor. U.S. prosecutors claim that vendor was deeply involved in the alleged kickback scheme in the Philippines. The five-day trip included business class airfare, hotel and numerous meals as well as time for sightseeing, Fox said.

“The trip’s itinerary demonstrates that the trip was not a financial inspection or audit. It was a boondoggle,” Fox said in court filings.

Logan, who did not report the gifts in his financial disclosures, said in his 2023 deposition that the meal at the Magic Castle was a “social occasion” unrelated to business and that he was not required to report the trip to Taiwan because his visit was covered by the contract.

Mike Sanchez, a spokesman for Logan’s office, said in a statement that the bribery allegations are unrelated to the company’s work for L.A. County and that the county had no knowledge of how the proceeds from its contract would be used. All of Smartmatic’s work has been evaluated for compliance with the contract’s terms, Sanchez added, and as soon as Pinate was indicted he and the other defendants were banned from conducting business with the county.

As for the trip to Taiwan, Sanchez said another county official joined Logan for the trip and the two conducted several on-site visits and conducted detailed reviews of electoral technology products that were required prior the start of their manufacturing. Logan’s spouse accompanied him on the trip, but at the couple’s own expense, the spokesman added.

“Unfortunately, this is an attempt to use the County as a pawn in two serious legal actions to which the County is not a party,” Sanchez said.

Smartmatic has settled two other defamation lawsuits it brought against conservative news outlets Newsmax and One America News Network over their 2020 U.S. election coverage. Settlement terms weren’t disclosed.

Prosecutors claim bribe paid in Venezuela

U.S. prosecutors in Miami have also accused Pinate of secretly bribing Venezuela’s longtime election chief by giving her a luxury home with a pool in Caracas. Prosecutors say the home was transferred to the election chief in an attempt to repair relations following Smartmatic’s abrupt exit from Venezuela in 2017 when it accused President Nicolas Maduro ‘s government of manipulating tallied results in elections for a rubber-stamping constituent assembly.

Smartmatic has denied the bribery allegations, saying it ceased all operations in Venezuela in 2017 after blowing the whistle on the government and has never sought to secure business there again.

“There are no slush funds, no gifted house,” the company said. Instead, it accused Fox of engaging in “victim-blaming” and attempts to use “frivolous” court filings “to smear us further, twisting unproven Justice Department allegations.”

___

Peltz reported from New York.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images

A New York appeals court on Thursday threw out President Donald Trump’s massive civil fraud penalty while upholding a judge’s finding that he exaggerated his wealth for decades. The ruling spares Trump from a potential half-billion-dollar fine but bans him and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years.

The decision came seven months after the Republican returned to the White House. A panel of five judges in New York’s mid-level Appellate Division said the verdict, which stood to cost Trump more than $515 million and rock his real estate empire, was “excessive.”

After finding Trump engaged in fraud by flagrantly padding financial statements that went to lenders and insurers, Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him last year to pay $355 million in penalties. With interest, the sum has topped $515 million.

The total — combined with penalties levied on some other Trump Organization executives, including Trump’s sons Eric and Donald Jr. — now exceeds $527 million, with interest.

An ‘excessive’ fine

“While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants’ business culture, the court’s disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,” Judges Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton wrote in one of several opinions shaping the appeals court’s ruling.

Engoron’s other punishments, upheld by the appeals court, have been on pause during Trump’s appeal, and he was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond.

The court, which split on the merits of the lawsuit and Engoron’s fraud finding, dismissed the penalty in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for an appeal to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals. Trump and his co-defendants, the judges wrote, can seek to extend the pause on any punishments taking effect.

The panel was sharply divided, issuing 323 pages of concurring and dissenting opinions with no majority. Rather, some judges endorsed parts of their colleagues’ findings while denouncing others, enabling the court to rule.

Two judges wrote that they felt New York Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit against Trump and his companies was justifiable and that she had proven her case but the penalty was too severe. One wrote that James exceeded her legal authority in bringing the suit, saying that if any of Trump’s lenders felt cheated, they could have sued him themselves, and none did.

One judge wrote that Engoron erred by ruling before the trial began that the attorney general had proved Trump engaged in fraud.

The appeals court, the Appellate Division of the state’s trial court, took an unusually long time to rule, weighing Trump’s appeal for nearly 11 months after oral arguments last fall. Normally, appeals are decided in a matter of weeks or a few months.

James has said the businessman-turned-politician engaged in “lying, cheating, and staggering fraud.” Her office had no immediate comment after Thursday’s decision.

Claims of politics at play

Trump and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. In a six-minute summation of sorts after a monthslong trial, Trump proclaimed in January 2024 he was “an innocent man” and the case was a “fraud on me.” The Republican has repeatedly maintained the case and the verdict were political moves by James and Engoron, both Democrats.

Trump’s Justice Department has subpoenaed James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president’s civil rights. James’ personal attorney Abbe D. Lowell has said investigating the fraud case is “the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president’s political retribution campaign.”

Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren’t deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren’t audited. The defense also noted bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid.

Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune.

During an appellate court hearing last September, Trump’s lawyers argued many of the case’s allegations were too old, an assertion they made unsuccessfully before trial. The defense also contends James misused a consumer protection law to sue Trump and improperly policed private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved.

State attorneys said the law in question applies to fraudulent or illegal business conduct, whether it targets everyday consumers or big corporations. Though Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, the state contends that the numbers led lenders to make riskier loans and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net worth numbers.

The state has argued that the verdict rests on ample evidence and that the scale of the penalty comports with Trump’s gains, including his profits on properties financed with the loans and the interest he saved by getting favorable terms offered to wealthy borrowers.

Legal obstacles

The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president.

On Jan. 10, he was sentenced in his criminal hush money case to what’s known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing the conviction.

And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury’s finding that Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider. Trump still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal.

Trump also is appealing a subsequent verdict that requires him to pay Carroll $83.3 million for additional defamation claims.

___

Follow the AP’s coverage of President Donald Trump at https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© AP Photo/Seth Wenig, Pool, File