FirstAlerts

Father and Son Plead Guilty in FIFA Bribery Case

Hugo and Mariano Jinkis admitted to conspiring to pay over $150 million in bribes to soccer executives.

2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 27, 2026, 4:51 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 27, 2026, 4:24 p.m. ETWritten Aug 27, 2026, 4:52 p.m. ET
Hugo Jinkis and his son Mariano Jinkis have guilty in the to conspiring to solicit and receive well over $150 million in bribes and kickbacks, according to a report by lamag.com. The government alleged that the two admitted to paying tens of millions of dollars in commercial bribes to soccer executives to secure media and marketing rights to high-profile soccer tournaments, lamag.com reported. Sentencing has not yet been scheduled.

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 27, 2026, 4:51 p.m. ETFirst report

    Father and Son Plead Guilty in FIFA Bribery Case

    Hugo Jinkis and his son Mariano Jinkis have pleaded guilty in the Eastern District of New York to conspiring to solicit and receive well over $150 million in bribes and kickbacks, according to a report by lamag.com.

    The government alleges that the Jinkises admitted to paying tens of millions of dollars in commercial bribes to soccer executives to secure media and marketing rights to high-profile soccer tournaments, as reported by lamag.com.

    The case is ongoing, and further proceedings have not been detailed.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 127 Aug 2026, 20:52current

    First published.

  2. Version 127 Aug 2026, 20:51current

    First published.

How we work

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.