PLASTIQUIM, S.A. v. ODEBRECHT CONSTRUCTION, INC.

District Court of Appeal of Florida
Not yet reported in So. 3d (2022)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint alleging fraud and civil conspiracy must state with particularity the essential facts constituting the intentional misrepresentation and the common scheme to commit an unlawful act, accepting all well-pled allegations as true regarding agency relationships.

Facts:

Odebrecht S.A., a construction company, engaged in a scheme to pay bribes to government officials, including Carlos Polit, to secure contracts.
To conceal the source of these funds, agents of Odebrecht recruited Plastiquim and its principal, Mauricio Neme, to borrow money from a purported wealthy investor.
John Polit, acting as an intermediary, falsely represented to Plastiquim that the funds came from a legitimate investor seeking a return, when they were actually illicit bribe monies being laundered.
Plastiquim accepted the loan based on these representations and repaid the funds to shell companies controlled by corrupt officials.
The 'Panama Papers' data leak exposed the scheme and the law firm Mossack Fonseca.
Following the leak, Plastiquim and Neme were implicated in criminal investigations regarding the money laundering.
As a result of the investigations, Plastiquim's assets were frozen and the company incurred significant business losses and legal expenses.

Procedural Posture:

Plastiquim and Neme filed suit in the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County against John Polit, Carlos Polit, and various Odebrecht entities alleging fraud, civil conspiracy, RICO violations, and FDUTPA violations.
The defendants (Carlos Polit and Odebrecht entities) moved to dismiss the complaint.
The trial court granted the motion to dismiss the claims with prejudice, ruling the complaint failed to state a cause of action.
Plastiquim and Neme appealed the dismissal to the Third District Court of Appeal.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a complaint alleging that defendants recruited plaintiffs into a sham loan transaction to launder bribe money state sufficient facts to support causes of action for fraud and civil conspiracy?

Opinions:

Majority - Judge Miller

Yes, the complaint adequately states causes of action for fraud and civil conspiracy because it pleads specific facts demonstrating intentional misrepresentation and a coordinated scheme to launder money. The court reasoned that in reviewing a motion to dismiss, it must accept all well-pled allegations as true, including the existence of agency relationships between the defendants. The complaint specifically alleged that John Polit acted as an agent for the Odebrecht entities to induce the plaintiffs into the transaction through false statements about the loan's source. Furthermore, the court found the conspiracy claim sufficient because the plaintiffs alleged a 'master plan' to bribe officials and conceal the acts, with each defendant knowing of the scheme and assisting it. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the RICO and FDUTPA claims as facially insufficient.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the high standard for dismissal at the pleading stage in Florida, emphasizing that courts must accept allegations—including agency theories—as true. It highlights the distinction between the evidentiary burden at trial and the pleading burden at the outset of litigation. While fraud requires 'particularity,' the court clarified that describing the specific fraudulent scheme (the sham loan to launder bribes) satisfies this requirement. The ruling serves as a warning to corporate entities that they may be kept in litigation regarding the actions of alleged agents or co-conspirators if the plaintiff sufficiently pleads a common illegal scheme, even if the agency relationship seems improbable to the defense.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: PLASTIQUIM, S.A. v. ODEBRECHT CONSTRUCTION, INC. (2022)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"