Former British Virgin Islands Premier Andrew Fahie is asking a U.S. federal appeals court to overturn his convictions, but the latest challenge is raising questions that go beyond whether the evidence against him was sufficient.
Fahie’s lawyers are arguing that the integrity of the government’s case itself must be examined — including what federal agents knew about the credibility of a key confidential informant and whether prosecutors properly disclosed that information to the defence.
Fahie was convicted in February 2024 on four federal charges arising from an undercover Drug Enforcement Administration operation in which agents posed as members of the Sinaloa Cartel. He was subsequently sentenced to 135 months — 11 years and three months — in federal prison.
His appeal is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
The confidential informant
One of the most significant arguments concerns the confidential informant known to Fahie as “Roberto Quintero.”
According to Fahie’s appeal, U.S. authorities possessed information concerning the informant’s credibility and reliability that was not disclosed to the defence in the manner required.
The appeal specifically points to a prior foreign judicial finding involving the informant and alleges that federal authorities knew of credibility concerns surrounding him.
Fahie’s lawyers further argue that a DEA case agent initially denied knowing about those concerns before later acknowledging that he was aware of general information about the informant’s credibility.
The defence contends that this was not simply a technical disclosure issue. It argues that the government’s handling of the information amounted to serious misconduct that compromised the fairness of the proceedings.
The trial judge ultimately rejected the defence’s request to dismiss the case on those grounds, although she criticised the conduct of the DEA agent.
That issue has now become one of the central pillars of Fahie’s appeal.
Did the government prove the cocaine conspiracy?
The defence is also challenging the cocaine-conspiracy conviction on an unusual evidentiary ground.
During the undercover operation, the confidential informant allegedly told Fahie that the cocaine would be concealed as liquid construction material and treated so that it would not test positive as cocaine during inspections.
According to the appeal, the substance would allegedly only be converted into detectable cocaine after a chemical extraction process in Puerto Rico.
Fahie’s lawyers argue that this creates a fundamental problem for the government’s case because the indictment charged him with conspiracy involving five kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine.
The government, however, strongly disagrees.
In its response to the appeal, U.S. Attorney Jason Reding Quiñones argued that Fahie agreed to accept millions of dollars to facilitate the movement of cocaine-laden vessels through BVI waters and that the evidence presented to the jury supported the convictions. The government has asked the appeals court to uphold the verdict without oral argument.
That means the appeals court will have to determine whether the defence’s interpretation of the cocaine evidence creates a genuine legal problem with the conviction — or whether the evidence, taken as a whole, was sufficient for the jury to find Fahie guilty.
Questions about the jury
The appeal also raises concerns about what happened after the jury returned its guilty verdict.
Fahie’s lawyers say two jurors expressed reservations about the verdict after being discharged.
One juror had also appeared hesitant when the verdict was formally polled in court.
The judge subsequently questioned that juror, who confirmed that the verdict was hers at the time it was rendered. However, according to the appeal, the second juror who allegedly expressed disagreement was not similarly interviewed.
The defence argues that the circumstances warranted a fuller inquiry into whether the verdict was genuinely unanimous.
Again, the government maintains that the jury’s verdict should stand.
The latest allegation
The appeal has gained renewed attention in recent days following renewed claims from Fahie’s legal team that federal agents may have given false testimony during the proceedings.
A September 11 report described the defence as arguing that prosecution witnesses may have lied under oath about what they knew concerning the confidential informant.
That allegation is potentially more serious than simply arguing that evidence was improperly handled.
If an appellate court were to find that material testimony was knowingly false or that the government deliberately concealed information that could have affected the verdict, the consequences could be significant.
But an allegation is not a finding.
The Eleventh Circuit must determine whether the issues raised by Fahie’s lawyers amount to legal errors that were sufficiently serious to require the convictions to be reversed or the case returned for further proceedings.
What happens next?
The U.S. government’s position is clear: Fahie’s convictions should remain intact.
Its June response asked the Eleventh Circuit to reject the appeal, arguing that the evidence supported the jury’s verdict and that Fahie’s arguments do not provide a basis for overturning his convictions.
For Fahie, the stakes could hardly be higher.
The former premier is serving an 11-year-and-three-month federal sentence after being found guilty of conspiracy to import cocaine, conspiracy to launder money, attempted money laundering and foreign travel in aid of racketeering.
The appeal is therefore not simply about whether Fahie believes the jury got it wrong.
It is about whether the trial was conducted in accordance with the rules governing a fair federal prosecution — and whether any errors were serious enough to undermine the convictions.
For the British Virgin Islands, where Fahie’s 2022 arrest and subsequent conviction became one of the most consequential political scandals in the Territory’s modern history, the appeal represents another chapter in a case that is far from over.
GBM will continue to follow the proceedings as the Eleventh Circuit considers Fahie’s appeal.