Federal Public Prosecutor's Office: Either everyone should be held accountable, or no one should be.

Journalist Marcelo Auler highlights excerpts from the decision of prosecutor Ivan Claudio Marx, from the Public Prosecutor's Office, which exonerated President Dilma in the "fiscal maneuvers" issue. Marx warns that the problem is old, that other presidents have also committed it, and that either everyone is held accountable, or no one is held accountable. Marx also shows that the Federal Court of Accounts did not fully fulfill its role by not questioning the practice between 2000 and 2015.

July 15, 2016, 19:32 pmUpdated June 30, 2018, 00:42 pm

Journalist Marcelo Auler highlights excerpts from the decision of prosecutor Ivan Claudio Marx, from the Public Ministry, who acquitted President Dilma in the "fiscal maneuvers" issue, in which he warns that the problem is old, that other presidents have also committed it, and that either everyone is held accountable, or no one is held accountable; Marx also shows that the Federal Court of Accounts did not fully fulfill its role, as it did not question the practice between 2000 and 2015 (Photo: Gisele Federicce)

247 – In the decision that acquitted President Dilma Rousseff in relation to the so-called "fiscal maneuvers," Public Prosecutor Ivan Claudio Marx warns that the problem is old, that other presidents have also committed it, and that either everyone is held accountable, or no one is held accountable.

Marx, who concluded that Dilma did not commit a crime with the accounting practices, also shows that the Federal Court of Accounts did not fully fulfill its role by not questioning the "fiscal maneuvers" from 2000 to 2015. The highlights of the decision were made by journalist Marcelo Auler, in [reference to a specific article or source]. your blog.

Here is the excerpt:

Therefore, it was not the increases in the Union's debt volumes, which emerged from 2013 onwards, that constituted the crime of 'credit operation without legislative authorization'.

Therefore, this crime has been committed since the year 2000, and all those who committed it should be held accountable, or none should be, if it is understood that they were unaware that the criminal offense created in 2000 fit that pre-existing practice, which remained until 2015 without any questioning by the control authorities (TCU, MPF, etc.).

Even more curious is the fact that this crime would continue to be committed, even at the moment these letters are being written on paper.

This is because the TCU (Brazilian Federal Court of Accounts), although it pointed out the existence of a crime in the case, did not determine any corrective measures, limiting itself to determining that the debts should no longer accumulate and that they should be captured by the BACEN (Central Bank of Brazil) for fiscal statistics. In other words, the TCU points to the existence of the crime of credit operation, but only determines corrections regarding acts of fiscal manipulation (delays without capture by the BACEN for statistical purposes).

"In other words, as the public prosecutor makes clear, they pointed out errors and flaws, but did not show a solution to the problem. Which can be seen as biased," Auler assesses. "The prosecutor, clearly and without subterfuge, dismantles the main argument of the coup plotters who ousted a president elected with 54 million votes and installed a vice-president who is, at the very least, opportunistic," he says.