The defendant is accused of having used false documents to persuade the Government of Angola to terminate contracts with another company relating to an energy and water project worth 1.1 billion dollars.
In the indictment, filed on Wednesday by the Manhattan federal court, to which Lusa had access on Friday, Wilson da Costa is also accused of identity theft.
The criminal charges arise following a long-running litigation between General Electric and an infrastructure company owned by Portuguese businessmen, AEnergy SA, which raised allegations of reckless conduct and cover-up against the North American company.
The indictment accused Wilson da Costa of falsifying documents allegedly belonging to government officials in Angola as part of the scheme between 2017 and 2019.
The indictment referred to the defendant as a "senior executive," although a General Electric spokesperson said he was a sales representative who left the company in 2019.
The case concerns 13 contracts signed between Aenergy and the Ministry of Energy and Water of Angola, in 2017, for the construction, expansion, requalification, operation and maintenance of electricity generation plants in Angola.
In 2017, the energy company led by Portuguese Ricardo Machado was hired to build and operate several state-owned plants, and should be financed through a credit line of 1.1 billion dollars with a unit of General Electric (GE), which stipulated that AEnergy purchase eight GE turbines for those plants.
AEnergy has been involved in litigation with Angola since the Angolan executive terminated, in 2019, several contracts with the company alleging a breach of trust due to alleged irregularities, accusations that the company rejects, guaranteeing that it had alerted the Ministry in charge and had carried out several projects without receiving payment.
In December 2019, four of the company's turbines, parts and consumables were seized from AEnergy, as part of a precautionary measure brought by the National Asset Recovery Service of the Attorney General's Office due to "indications of breach of contracts".
