STJ minister upholds Palocci's imprisonment.

The president of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), Minister Laurita Vaz, denied a new request for release made by the defense of former minister Antonio Palocci, who is being held in pretrial detention in the 35th phase of Operation Lava Jato.

This time, Palocci's defense requested that the decision be reconsidered. decision from Minister Felix Fischer, rapporteur for Lava Jato at the STJ (Superior Court of Justice), who denied a request for an injunction to release the former minister.

In this new request, Palocci's defense reiterated that the preventive detention is "devoid of just cause" and questioned the arguments for maintaining the precautionary custody, such as the possibility of destruction of evidence, the need to guarantee the criminal investigation, and the risk of flight.

The defense also denied that the nickname "Italiano," found in the spreadsheets of one of the construction companies involved in the embezzlement of Petrobras funds, is a reference to Palocci.

Firm measures

In her decision, Laurita Vaz emphasized that habeas corpus is the proper procedural means to challenge injury or threat to the right to freedom of movement, due to illegality or abuse of power. Because of its expedited processing, "the alleged illegality must be demonstrated through documentation, dispensing with an in-depth examination of the evidence, which is incompatible with the narrow scope of the procedure."

"While pretrial detention is an extreme measure that should be invoked sparingly, society expects the public authorities, particularly the Judiciary, to adopt firm and proportionate measures against criminal conduct that seriously undermines the structure of the State and its foundations of stability," he stated.

The minister emphasized that the case under analysis "is not ordinary," as "it involves the investigation of crimes against public funds, whose alleged perpetrators – businessmen from large corporations and public officials of the highest echelons of the federal government – ​​organized themselves to embezzle astronomical sums, causing immeasurable harm to Brazilian society."

The president of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) recalled that the indictment filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office and accepted by the federal court accuses Palocci and his former advisor Branislav Kontic of the crimes of passive corruption and money laundering.

Systemic corruption

"In my opinion, based on a purely preliminary examination – which does not constitute a premature judgment of guilt, but only a verification of plausibility based on what has been ascertained so far – the precautionary measures imposed on the patient appear to be absolutely reasonable and proportionate," he considered.

Laurita Vaz cited a passage from a ruling by the Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region (TRF4) that denied another request for Palocci's release. In the collegiate decision, the judges considered that preventive detention is justified to preserve public order, in a context of systemic corruption and repeated offenses.

"The measure, in addition to preventing the investigated party from becoming involved in other criminal schemes, will also have the beneficial effect of preventing or hindering further attempts to conceal and disguise the proceeds of the crime, since these have not yet been fully traced and recovered," the ruling reads.

Previous

The minister also cited the understanding of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) that preventive detention is justified to guarantee public order "when there is strong evidence of the defendant's participation in a criminal organization, in crimes of passive corruption and money laundering, all related to fraud in public contracts that resulted in substantial losses to the mixed-economy company and, in the same proportion, in his illicit enrichment and that of third parties" (HC 302.604).

Laurita Vaz also mentioned the understanding of the First Panel of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), in the judgment of HC 95.024, that "the need to interrupt or reduce the activities of members of a criminal organization" constitutes sufficient grounds to order preventive detention and guarantee public order.