‘Conspiracy charge vs Villagomez not time-barred’

The conspiracy allegations in the indictment filed against Lt. Gov. Timothy P. Villagomez are not time-barred and that the U.S. government had in fact until 2013 to file the charges, according to assistant U.S. attorney Eric O’Malley.

The indictment alleges one continuous conspiracy that began in February 1998, and lasted until at least Jan. 15, 2008, said O’Malley in the U.S. government’s response to the motions to dismiss filed by Villagomez and co-defendant James A. Santos.

The prosecutor said the statute of limitations began to run on Jan. 15, 2008, therefore the U.S. government had until Jan. 15, 2013 to indict.

The indictment against Villagomez and co-defendant was filed on July 22, 2008.

The indictment stated that, Villagomez, who was then the Commonwealth Utilities Corp. executive director, conspired with James Santos in 1998 to arrange several large purchases of Rydlyme, a de-scaling agent, through a company he owned—sales that came with a 400-percent markup and violated conflict of interest laws.

According to the indictment, most of the 8,000 gallons of Rydlyme sold under the deal were never used.

James Santos’ ISLA Sales Micronesia profited $280,000 through the plan from 1998 to 2000, the indictment said.

Villagomez, as lieutenant governor, sought to revive the Rydlyme sales scheme in 2007 and, this time, under a sole-source emergency contract with Joaquina Santos’ company, Blue Pacific, filling the order, the indictment said, adding that the 2007 contract earned Blue Pacific $120,000.

In the motions to dismiss joined by Joaquina Santos, Villagomez and James Santos insisted that the indictment is defective as the allegations in the conspiracy charge are time-barred.

The defendants, through their respective lawyers, said the applicable statute of limitations of five years for a conspiracy bars any and all allegations and or counts that rely on the overt acts alleged by the U.S. government.

“The indictment does not contain a single allegation of any overt act or wrongdoing of defendant or any co-conspirator, between Jan. 4, 2000, and Aug. 7, 2007,” said attorney David J. Lujan, who is lead counsel for Villagomez.

Lujan said the U.S. government failed to allege a requisite overt act before the statute of limitations ran out on or around Jan. 4, 2005.

In response to the motions, O’Malley said the defendants’ argument that, as a matter of law, the jury may not consider whether there was a single ongoing conspiracy dating back to 1998 “is without merit.”

“Whether there was a single conspiracy or multiple conspiracies is a question of fact, reserved for determination by the jury,” O’Malley pointed out.

The government lawyer said the indictment alleges that the 1998-2000 transactions involved the same scheme, activities, goals, and were under the same “overall agreement” as the 2007 transaction.

O’Malley said the indictment also alleges that the same central actors—Villagomez and James Santos—were involved in both the 1998-2000 transactions and the 2007 transaction, specifying that defendants Anthony C. Guerrero and Joaquina V. Santos participated only in the 2007 transaction.

“Assuming the government meets its burden at trial, reasonable jurors may find that there was one agreement which began with the 1998-2000 transactions and was reactivated in 2007, thus drawing the entire scheme within the statute of limitations,” he said.

The hearing on the motions was set for Thursday, Dec. 11, in the U.S. District Court for the NMI.

The indictment charged Villagomez, former Commerce Secretary James Santos, his wife Joaquina Santos, and former CUC executive director Anthony Guerrero with wire fraud, conspiracy, and theft involving federal funds.

Except for Guerrero, all defendants have pleaded not guilty.