The United States’ FIFAGate investigation struck a snag after former Peruvian federation president Manuel Burga was cleared by a jury after further deliberations in New York. Burga had been sent for trial along with ex-Brazilian CBF president Jose Maria Marin and former South American confederation supremo Juan Angel Napout.

All three had denied corruption charges in the US$200 million bribery scandal and, last Friday, Marin and Napout were found guilty and detained ahead of jail terms. However, the jury was unable to agree on the the case against Burga who denied racketeering and conspiracy to collect $4.4 million in bribes.

His lawyers had argued that he would not have been able to receive bribes as he was under investigation for money laundering in Peru. They also challenged the prosecution over the issue of US legal jurisdiction, although this was rejected by Judge Patricia Chen.

Guilty verdicts

Marin, accused of accepting $6.55 million in bribes, was found guilty on six counts, of racketeering conspiracy, wire fraud, and money laundering conspiracy; he was found not guilty on one count of money laundering conspiracy. Paraguayan Napout, who had been accused of accepting $10.5 million in bribes since 2010, was found guilty on three counts, of racketeering conspiracy and wire fraud conspiracy; he was found not guilty on two counts of money laundering conspiracy.

After leaving the court Burga, who was also once a Regional Development Officer with world governing body FIFA, said: “God bless America!” During the trial and without the knowledge of the jury, he had denied threatening key prosecution witness Alejandro Burzaco, an Argentinian rights executive, by making a throat-slashing gesture.

Around 40 other former football executives and companies from the Americas face court action next year. More than 20 have already pleaded guilty  after entering into plea-bargain negotiations with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). FIFA has launched legal action for financial compensation against all defendants, although this runs directly contrary to the body’s insistence that it had no respoonsibility for the actions of individual executives.

• This article was originally published on Keir Radnedge’s internet site on 26 December 2017. To access the original, please click here.