United States v. Vazquez-Garced
3:22-cr-00342
| D.P.R. | Jun 5, 2025Background
- In August 2022, Wanda Vázquez-Garced (former Governor of Puerto Rico), Julio M. Herrera Velutini (bank owner), and Mark T. Rossini (consultant) were indicted for conspiracy, federal program bribery, and honest services wire fraud.
- The indictment alleges Vázquez replaced Puerto Rico’s financial regulator at Herrera’s behest, after Herrera’s bank was under investigation, in exchange for campaign contributions and consulting services.
- Rossini filed a motion to dismiss Counts One (conspiracy), Two (federal program bribery), and Four (honest services wire fraud), arguing the indictment was legally insufficient.
- The court consolidated Herrera’s similar motion and denied Vázquez’s objections regarding information disclosed in Rossini’s filings.
- No oral argument or evidentiary hearing was held; the court determined the motion would be decided on the written submissions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of indictment under Rule 7(c)(1) | Indictment satisfies legal standards | Indictment lacks specific facts on corrupt intent | Indictment is sufficient |
| Corrupt intent required under § 666(a)(2) | Bribery requires quid pro quo, not gratuity | No evidence of corrupt agreement/intent | Factual question for jury |
| Applicability of recent Supreme Court guidance | Snyder clarifies bribery vs. gratuity, followed | Indictment falls short under Snyder’s standards | Snyder supports indictment |
| Dismissal based on disputed factual issues | Factual disputes not for dismissal stage | Disputed facts undermine government’s theory | Dismissal not proper |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Yefsky, 994 F.2d 885 (1st Cir. 1993) (sufficiency of indictment requires notice and double jeopardy protection)
- Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (1974) (an indictment may use statutory language with supporting facts)
- United States v. Parigian, 824 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2016) (indictment must inform accused of specific offense)
- United States v. Stepanets, 879 F.3d 367 (1st Cir. 2018) (court rejects technical arguments at indictment stage)
- United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, 526 U.S. 398 (1999) (bribery requires a quid pro quo)
- United States v. Fernandez, 722 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013) (distinction between bribery and gratuity under federal law)