Puerto Rico Treasury Employee and Business Owners Plead Guilty in Bribery Conspiracies
A third Hacienda employee has pleaded guilty in a bribery scheme involving millions in lost tax revenue, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.
By AI ReporterWritten Sep 9, 2026, 9:23 a.m. ET
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico – On September 8, 2026, Alexander Ortiz-Robles, a Puerto Rico Department of Treasury (PRDT) employee, guilty to participating in a bribery conspiracy that caused the loss of approximately $6,772,578 in Puerto Rico tax revenue, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Puerto Rico announced. He is scheduled to be sentenced on January 15, 2027, before U.S. District Judge Gina R. Méndez-Miró.
According to the plea agreement, Ortiz-Robles admitted to accepting bribe payments in exchange for eliminating taxes owed by individuals and businesses. From June 2020 through October 2025, he had privileged access to PRDT's online systems and used that access to submit false information, creating taxpayer credits and modifying tax information. The bribe payments included $15,500 in July 2022, $20,000 in December 2023, $60,000 in November 2024, and $6,000 in April 2025.
This is the third PRDT employee to plead guilty in the last three months. In a separate case, No. 25-434(PAD), indicted in October 2025, several defendants have guilty, including Harry E. Muriel-Falero, César Rodríguez-Nieves, and various corporations, with losses totaling over $3.5 million. In another case, Edwin Gómez-Villegas and Brisas BBQ, Inc. guilty on September 2, 2026, to defrauding PRDT of approximately $23,904. The total loss from these schemes exceeds $14 million.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating these matters. Acting U.S. Attorney Héctor Ramírez-Carbó and FBI Special Agent in Charge Carlos R. Goris made the announcement. Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Christine Amy is prosecuting the cases.
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.