As the Cleveland Guardians fight to hang onto the final wild card spot in the American League, star reliever Emmanuel Clase and his co-defendants took a loss in court Tuesday, when a U.S. district court judge declined to dismiss a charge in their illegal sports betting case.
It was the second time in a two-week span that the court denied a defendant’s motion in the case — last week, Eastern District of New York Judge Kiyo Matsumoto denied a request from Luis Ortiz to have his case heard separately from Clase’s. Clase’s motion to sever the trials was partially granted — a fifth charge was added in a superseding indictment in February, and that count will be heard in a separate stage of the trial.
The two are accused of rigging pitches so bettors could cash in. The trial is set to start Nov. 2.
Clase and Ortiz are accused of sharing information with bettors about what pitches they would make and when, so that the bettors could place wagers that would cash. Prosecutors allege the scheme began in May 2023 when Clase agreed with co-defendant Robinson Vasquez Germosen, Defendant 4 (a bettor), and other bettors who made “fraudulent” wagers on legal sports betting platforms. Ortiz joined the scheme two years later and is accused of throwing four rigged pitches in June 2025. Prosecutors also allege that Clase and Ortiz were sometimes paid for the rigged pitches.
The bettors won at least $450,000, per court documents.
Bar is high to have indictment dismissed
Matsumoto laid out the reasons that he denied three requests to dismiss Count 1, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, calling all three arguments “unavailing.” Two of the requests were made by Clase, Ortiz, and Vasquez Germosen, who was added to the case in the superseding indictment, and one was made by Vasquez Germosen alone.
The judge rejected the motions, he wrote, because the bar is high to dismiss an indictment. He referred to several previous court opinions that say the dismissal of an indictment is reserved for “extraordinary” circumstances.
Wire fraud conspiracy is defined as a “scheme to defraud,” and Matsumoto wrote that “such deception has been sufficiently alleged here.”
