United States v. Joel Esquenazi, 752 F.3d 912

Esquenazi and Rodriguez were convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to violate the FCPA and wire fraud, and conspiracy to launder money, along with substantive FCPA and money-laundering counts.
Terra Telecommunications contracted with Teleco, a Haitian telecom provider alleged to be controlled by the Haitian government and to have public-function status for the relevant period.
Evidence showed Teleco’s government ties: monopoly over telecom, government-appointed directors, and ownership/control by Haiti’s state and BRH; experts described Teleco as a state entity.
Terra paid Teleco through intermediaries (including J.D. Locator and TCSC) via sham contracts and side payments, resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars funneled to Teleco officials and affiliates.
Prime Minister Bellerive statements during trial suggested Teleco was not a formal state enterprise, prompting Brady-related challenges and motions for new trial, which were denied.
At sentencing, Esquenazi and Rodriguez challenged guideline enhancements, including value-based loss, leadership, and obstruction adjustments, all of which the district court applied; forfeiture was also imposed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Meaning of instrumentality under FCPA	Esquenazi/Rodriguez urged a narrow scope.	Esquenazi/Rodriguez urged a broader, stricter definition.	Instrumentality defined as government-controlled entity performing a function government treats as its own.
Sufficiency of evidence Teleco is Haitian instrumentality	Teleco was government-controlled; evidence supports instrumentality.	Insufficient proof Teleco performed a government function.	Sufficient evidence Teleco was controlled and performed a government function.
Knowledge element and deliberate-ignorance instruction	Deliberate-ignorance instruction justified by circumstantial evidence.	Instruction improper where actual knowledge existed; overbroad.	Deliberate-ignorance instruction improper for Rodriguez; harmless error given substantial actual knowledge findings.
Brady/evidentiary withholding claim	Prime Minister declaration material; Brady violation potential.	Government had no Brady material; no duty to disclose absent possession.	No Brady violation; no obligation to hold evidentiary hearing.
Merger and status of money-laundering counts	Money-laundering counts may merge with FCPA offenses.	Counts should merge or be improper as to proceeds.	No merger; concealment money-laundering separate from FCPA offenses; convictions affirmed.

United States v. Kay, 359 F.3d 738 (5th Cir. 2004) (broad interpretation of instrumentality in FCPA context)
Edison v. Douberly, 604 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2010) (instrumentality interpreted with context; avoid narrow readings)
Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125 (U.S. 1998) (statutory interpretation and canons of construction)
Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. M/V Sky Reefer, 515 U.S. 528 (U.S. 1995) (interpretation of international-law obligations and treaty compliance)
First National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611 (U.S. 1983) (government function as evolving over time; limits of government action)
United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (U.S. 2008) (merger doctrine in money-laundering prosecutions (plurality) discussion)
United States v. Jennings, 599 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2010) (control/enterprise with respect to Santos reasoning)
Cherry Cotton Mills, Inc. v. United States, 327 U.S. 536 (U.S. 1946) (public enterprise function and government purpose distinctions)
Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. J.G. Menihan Corp., 312 U.S. 81 (U.S. 1941) (governmental agency status and public purpose considerations)