Smartmatic Seeks Dismissal of Trump‑Era Indictment as Vindictive Prosecution Retaliating for Its Defamation Suits
On March 10, 2026 Smartmatic filed a motion in federal court in Florida seeking dismissal of its October 2025 superseding indictment, arguing it is a vindictive and selective prosecution and noting the DOJ has not brought a corporate FCPA case in 15 years and has publicly abandoned numerous FCPA and bribery probes, which it says shows Smartmatic was unfairly singled out. The company alternatively seeks discovery and an evidentiary hearing into alleged improper involvement by Donald Trump and his allies in the charging decision—citing the Kilmar Abrego Garcia precedent—and frames the prosecution as part of a broader "campaign of retribution" targeting perceived enemies, including efforts to pursue Democratic lawmakers and calls to prosecute former special counsel Jack Smith.
📌 Key Facts
- On March 10, 2026, Smartmatic filed a detailed motion to dismiss its October 2025 superseding indictment in federal court in Florida, arguing the prosecution is vindictive and selective and should be dismissed.
- The filing frames the prosecution as retaliatory, situating it within what Smartmatic calls former President Trump’s broader "campaign of retribution" targeting perceived enemies.
- Smartmatic cites efforts by Trump and allies to pursue perceived opponents — including efforts against Democratic lawmakers and public calls to prosecute former special counsel Jack Smith — as part of that alleged campaign of retribution.
- The motion stresses that the Department of Justice has not brought a corporate FCPA case in 15 years and asserts the Trump DOJ publicly abandoned many FCPA and bribery investigations, arguing Smartmatic was singled out despite that broader pullback.
- As an alternative to dismissal, Smartmatic requests discovery and an evidentiary hearing to investigate alleged improper involvement by Trump and his allies in the charging decision.
- The filing cites the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case — where a judge found a "realistic likelihood of vindictiveness" and granted similar discovery — as precedent supporting Smartmatic’s request for investigative relief.
📊 Relevant Data
Smartmatic was charged in a superseding indictment on October 16, 2025, with involvement in a bribery and money laundering scheme to secure election contracts in the Philippines between 2015 and 2018, allegedly paying over $1 million in bribes to officials.
Voting Machine Company Charged in Philippine Bribery and Money Laundering Scheme — U.S. Department of Justice
An exhaustive fact-check by the Associated Press identified fewer than 475 potential instances of voter fraud across six battleground states in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, out of over 25 million ballots cast in those states.
Exhaustive fact check finds little evidence of voter fraud, but 2020's 'Big Lie' lives on — PBS NewsHour
In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, voter turnout rates among eligible voters were approximately 71% for non-Hispanic White, 63% for Black, 54% for Hispanic, and 59% for Asian Americans.
Voter turnout in US presidential elections by ethnicity 1964-2020 — Statista
Since Donald Trump's return to office, his administration has targeted at least 46 individuals, businesses, and other entities with threats of investigations or penalties, according to a tracker of retaliatory actions.
Trump's campaign of retribution: At least 470 targets and counting — Reuters
📰 Source Timeline (2)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
- Smartmatic filed a detailed motion to dismiss its October 2025 superseding indictment in federal court in Florida on March 10, 2026, arguing it is a vindictive and selective prosecution.
- The motion emphasizes that DOJ has not brought a corporate FCPA case in 15 years and that the Trump DOJ has publicly abandoned many FCPA and bribery investigations, portraying Smartmatic as being singled out despite that broader pullback.
- Smartmatic explicitly asks, in the alternative, for discovery and an evidentiary hearing into alleged improper involvement by Trump and his allies in the charging decision, citing the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case where a judge found a 'realistic likelihood of vindictiveness' and granted similar discovery.
- The filing situates Smartmatic’s prosecution within what it calls Trump’s broader 'campaign of retribution' targeting perceived enemies, referencing efforts to pursue Democratic lawmakers and Trump’s public calls to prosecute former special counsel Jack Smith.