Smartmatic's PR disaster

Presumably intent in doing damage limitation, Smartmatic dispatched a couple of executives to Mexico City to brief the press about the mounting suspicions regarding its operations, and the way in which it had won a tender for the provision of biometric technology. Robert Cook and Jim Bell, quoted by the Mexican press as Smartmatic's representatives, stated today that the company has "participated in electoral processes in 70 countries... have never been sued by any government... and that President Obama voted using Smartmatic technology." These three statements merit further scrutiny:

1. It would be great, for Smartmatic's own credibility sake, if Messieurs Cook and Bell can provide a list of the 70 countries in which Smartmatic has, succesffully, participated. Of particular interest, commercial operations in European countries where Smartmatic has been involved, according to Cook.
2. Smartmatic has never been sued by any government. However, how could one interpret the investigation launched in Chicago in 2006, after local authorities found out that Smartmatic-operated Sequoia machines "did not perform adequately"? Moreover, what to make of Smartmatic's decision to drop Sequoia Voting System to prevent further investigations from CFIUS into its ownership structure, and ties to the Chavez regime?
3. President Obama voted using Smartmatic technology. Does that mean that Smartmatic continues to provide technology to Sequoia Voting Systems, despite the fact that it announced that is was selling it?

Smartmatic does Mexico

In spite of having won contracts worth millions of dollars in different countries, Smartmatic seems incapable of shaking allegations that mar its reputation. And the reason is quite simple: the more business it gains, the greater the lack of transparency. Take for instance what has recently happened in Mexico, where the government is planning to gather biometric data to produce ID cards. A tender was organised by the Mexican government and the following companies submitted bids: LATIN ID S.A. de C.V., MAINBIT S.A. de C.V.; SOLTIC S.A. de C.V.; and, the grand sounding, Smartmatic International Holding, B.V.

Smartmatic won the tender to provide such technology, despite having submitted the highest bid. Smartmatic mislead Mexican authorities, by presenting itself as a Dutch company. I happen to have dug the records of Smartmatic in the Netherlands some years ago, their activities are described as "to purchase, develop and manage property and goods". There's nothing about provision of biometric devices in there. As a matter of fact, Smartmatic has no track record of having been directly contracted to provide such technology anywhere in the world. In Bolivia, a province of Hugo Chavez, Smartmatic managed to get subcontracted by a company from Argentina, another province of Hugo Chavez, called NEC Argentina, to gather biometric data destined for the electoral roll. But even that process has been marred with irregularities. The Bolivian press reports that Smartmatic's initial offering was rejected due to its participation in fraudulent elections in Venezuela.

But Smartmatic irregularities do not end there. Company records show that, just weeks before Smartmatic won its first contract in Venezuela, Antonio Mugica and the late Alfredo Anzola (Smartmatic and Bizta principals), took Bs.300 million ($187,000) from a subsidiary of a Venezuelan government entity called FONCREI. It is this information which would probably have caused the decision by Smartmatic of 'selling' Sequoia Voting Systems to avoid a proper investigation from CFIUS into its ownership structure. To this day, Smartmatic is to present credible evidence of having repurchased the stock acquired by the Venezuelan government.

Then there's is the issue in the Philippines, where, yet again, Smartmatic misrepresented itself in order to win an electoral contract. In addition, it was revealed that Smartmatic technicians remotely accessed servers during a regional election in Mindanao.

So there's a few simple questions that Mexican citizens should be posing to authorities:

1. Why is a company that has no record in the provision of biometric technology allowed to enter bids in a public tender organised to that effect?
2. In light of previous question: why have Mexican authorities granted the contract to the highest and least experienced bidder?
3. Why has Smartmatic misrepresented itself, alleging that is a Dutch company, when is in fact a Venezuelan one with suspect connections to the Chavez regime?
4. If it is true that Smartmatic is a Dutch corporation, where are the tax returns from operations in that country?

Smartmatic a Dutch company?

News don't get anymore surreal than this: Mexico has just granted a $23 million contract to Smartmatic, which is now meant to be a Dutch company, to provide biometric technology needed to produce ID cards. To be frank, I am puzzled at the commercial ability of Antonio Mugica. He seems to share the 'business acumen' of Ricardo Fernandez Barrueco, mind individuals that only a decade ago couldn't afford a roll of toilet paper being awarded now contracts worth millions of dollars everywhere. For the Mexican contract comes after the Filipino one, where Smartmatic was awarded $150 million.

But what strikes as completely ignorant is how Mexican media are describing Smartmatic as a Dutch company, when it is public knowledge that the company decided to dispose of Sequoia, and obstruct a CFIUS investigation into its convoluted ownership structure, after its connections to the Venezuelan regime were exposed. To be certain, Smartmatic is as Dutch as Hugo Chavez. And to go a bit further, Smartmatic is yet to run the first truly transparent and problem-free election -only field in which the corporation does have a record.