Despite securing contracts worth millions of dollars in various countries, Smartmatic appears unable to shake off accusations that tarnish its reputation. The reason is quite simple: the more business it wins, the greater the lack of transparency. Take, for instance, the recent events in Mexico, where the government plans to collect biometric data to produce identification cards. The Mexican government called for bids, and the following companies submitted proposals: LATIN ID S.A. de C.V., MAINBIT S.A. de C.V., SOLTIC S.A. de C.V., and the prominent Smartmatic International Holding, B.V.
Smartmatic won the tender to provide this technology, even though it submitted the highest bid. Smartmatic misled Mexican authorities by presenting itself as a Dutch company. A few years back, I uncovered Smartmatic’s records in the Netherlands, which describe its activities as “buying, developing, and managing properties and assets.” There’s nothing indicating the provision of biometric devices. In fact, Smartmatic has no track record of being directly contracted to provide this technology anywhere in the world. In Bolivia, under Hugo Chávez, Smartmatic managed to be subcontracted by an Argentine firm, another Chávez stronghold, called NEC Argentina, to collect biometric data for electoral rolls. However, even this process has been marred by irregularities. The Bolivian press reports that Smartmatic’s initial bid was rejected due to its involvement in fraudulent elections in Venezuela.
But Smartmatic’s irregularities don’t stop there. Company records show that just weeks before Smartmatic secured its first contract in Venezuela, Antonio Mugica and the late Alfredo Anzola (heads of Smartmatic and Bizta) took Bs. 300 million ($187,000) from a subsidiary of a Venezuelan government entity called FONCREI. This information likely influenced Smartmatic’s decision to ‘sell’ the Sequoia voting systems to avoid a thorough CFIUS investigation into its ownership structure. To date, Smartmatic needs to present credible evidence of having repurchased the shares acquired by the Venezuelan government.
Next, there’s the issue in the Philippines, where once again, Smartmatic misrepresented itself to win an electoral contract. Furthermore, it was revealed that Smartmatic technicians remotely accessed the servers during a regional election in Mindanao.
Therefore, there are some simple questions that Mexican citizens should pose to their authorities:
Why is a company without a background in providing biometric technology allowed to submit bids in a public tender organized for this purpose? In light of the previous question: why have Mexican authorities awarded the contract to the highest bidder with the least experience? Smartmatic misrepresented itself, claiming to be a Dutch company when it is actually a Venezuelan one with questionable connections to the Chávez regime. If Smartmatic is indeed a Dutch corporation, where are the tax returns for its operations in that country?