Smartmatic says Trump’s “campaign of retaliation” leads to criminal prosecution

MIAMI (AP) — Voting technology company Smartmatic is seeking to dismiss a criminal money laundering indictment, blaming President Donald Trump and his allies seeking its impeachment as part of a “retaliation campaign” against those it blames for his 2020 election loss.

Smartmatic’s parent company, UK-based SGO, was added to a criminal indictment last fall before several executives were accused of paying $1 million in bribes to election officials in the Philippines.

In a motion to dismiss the indictment filed Tuesday, Smartmatic’s lawyers said the company has been cooperating with the Justice Department since it first learned of its investigation in 2021, including by producing millions of pages of documents and making presentations to federal agents. A trial date was set for the executives, including co-founder Roger Peanut, and the company thought the matter was clear.

But when Trump returned to the White House, the Justice Department reversed course and decided to file charges against Smartmatic. The company’s lawyers said the decision was prompted by Trump’s demands to prosecute his perceived enemies and his “mantra” that Smartmatic helped rig the 2020 US presidential election won by Joe Biden — claims that are at the heart of a $2.7 billion lawsuit Smartmatic has filed against the president’s media allies.

“SGO’s prosecution reinforces its false collective narrative that President Trump did not actually lose the 2020 election,” Smartmatic said in the lawsuit filed in Miami federal court.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Read more: A new poll shows that Americans are increasingly concerned about voting

Lawyers likened the trial to the Justice Department’s targeting of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant who was criminally charged for his behavior years ago after he successfully sued the Trump administration over its decision to deport him.

In the years since the election, the filing states, “Smartmatic USA has exercised its right to hold these individuals and entities legally accountable for the deluge of their defamatory statements and the associated harm to its businesses, placing it squarely in the crosshairs of retaliation.”

The criminal case against Smartmatic and its employees stems from payments, between 2015 and 2018, allegedly made to obtain a contract with the Philippine government to help administer the 2016 presidential election in that country. Peanut, who no longer works for Smartmatic but remains a shareholder, has pleaded not guilty.

As part of the criminal case, prosecutors in August asked for court permission to present evidence they say shows that revenue from a $300 million contract with Los Angeles County to help modernize its voting systems was diverted to a “slush fund” controlled by Bennati through the use of offshore shell companies, fake invoices and other means.

They also accused Benati of secretly bribing Venezuela’s longtime election chief by giving her a luxury home with a swimming pool in Caracas. Prosecutors say the house was transferred to the electoral chief in an attempt to mend relations after Smartmatic’s abrupt exit from Venezuela in 2017 when the government of then-President Nicolas Maduro was accused of tampering with the results of the Constituent Assembly elections.

Smartmatic was founded more than two decades ago by a group of Venezuelans who had early success running elections when the late Hugo Chavez, a fan of electronic voting, was in power. The company later expanded globally, providing voting machines and other technology to help conduct elections in 25 countries, from Argentina to Zambia.

But Smartmatic said its business faltered after Fox News gave Trump’s lawyers a platform to portray the company as part of a plot to steal the 2020 election.

Fox said it was providing legitimate reporting on the newsworthy events, but it eventually aired an article refuting the allegations after Smartmatic’s lawyers complained. However, it vigorously defended itself against the defamation suit filed in New York — arguing that the company was facing imminent collapse because of its internal misconduct, not because of any negative coverage.