Smartmatic Accuses Trump DOJ of ‘Vindictive’ Bribery Prosecution

Smartmatic moved to dismiss its foreign bribery indictment by arguing the Trump administration was unconstitutionally vengeful in bringing charges against the voting technology company targeted by conspiracy theories from the president’s allies.

The “vindictive and selective prosecution” dismissal motion filed Tuesday embraces a legal tactic that’s historically been a long shot but lately started gaining traction for other Trump adversaries. Defendants Kilmar Abrego Garcia and James Comey both scored preliminary wins in attempts to void criminal prosecution by pointing to the Justice Department’s allegedly retributive and discriminatory motivation.

Smartmatic, which has long been falsely blamed by Trump’s base for rigging the 2020 election, in October became the first business in 15 years to get indicted under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Prosecutors originally charged the voting machine vendor’s senior executives in 2024 for the same alleged misconduct, without determining if Smartmatic shared liability.

“The only consequential changes in this case since 2024 were the President, his DOJ, and their well-documented crusade to unconstitutionally target their perceived political enemies, like Smartmatic,” the company said in its request to a federal judge in Miami.

The department showed renewed interest last summer in holding Smartmatic’s UK-based parent company SGO accountable for what were allegedly $1 million in bribes tied to the 2016 Philippine election. Settlement negotiations with company counsel commenced, culminating in Miami’s Trump-aligned US Attorney Jason Reding Quinoñes entering the discussions shortly after being sworn in and quickly shutting down the talks, Bloomberg Law has previously reported. Three days later, DOJ obtained the superseding grand jury indictment.

Smartmatic’s lawyers are now asking the judge to drop the case with prejudice or at a minimum to grant discovery and schedule a hearing to review evidence behind the prosecution’s intent. In its filing, Smartmatic drew parallels to Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran immigrant whose legal team persuaded a judge to hold such an evidentiary hearing last month.

Although it’s rare for courts to dismiss an indictment on the basis of vindictive or selective prosecution, Smartmatic’s effort previews a possible increase in defendants willing to take a shot at the strategy. As the voting company notes in its dismissal bid, judges are increasingly questioning whether the administration is still be entitled to the “presumption of regularity,” the judicial doctrine that assumes the government is acting properly in court.

Another factor compelling the court to permit discovery, defense lawyers argued, is the indictment’s potential benefit to Fox News, its former host and current Washington US Attorney Jeanine Pirro, and other Trump allies who are named defendants in defamation lawsuits Smartmatic has filed. The suits seek billions of dollars in damages from claims amplified on Fox and other conservative media that Smartmatic played a role denying Trump the 2020 election.

“Discovery may reveal additional evidence that the Administration, potentially under the influence of Fox News or other allies staring down defamation claims, directed DOJ to indict SGO,” the company said in its motion.

Fox News has cited the bribery charges as grounds for delaying the defamation case and reducing any possible payout.

Smartmatic separately argued that it was a victim of selective prosecution by highlighting the steps Attorney General Pam Bondi and the White House took last year to scale back the scope of overseas bribery enforcement and abandon longstanding cases against other defendants.

It remains to be seen whether Smartmatic can persuade the judge to scrutinize what prompted DOJ’s charging decision. But the fact that the department must defend against this claim illustrates the challenges prosecutors face of late to advance white collar and other criminal enforcement initiatives as judges, juries, and the broader public reject the notion of a politically impartial DOJ.

Smartmatic offered a nod to this dynamic as a reason the Miami judge should dismiss or grant discovery regardless of whether line prosecutors who charged the case weren’t politically motivated.

“Public statements by the President and his allies show that the Executive Branch harbors animus to Smartmatic, and that the President has directed subordinates within to prosecute entities involved in the 2020 U.S. election,” the company said. “It is the President’s face alone on the massive banner now draped across Main Justice.”

The case is USA v. Donato Bautista, S.D. Fla., No. 1:24-cr-20343, motion filed 3/10/26.