Former BRB director continues to have his assets seized.
Divino Alves dos Santos is accused of embezzling public funds, money laundering, and forming a criminal organization; the court has only authorized one account for receiving his pension.
Brasilia 247 - In a unanimous decision, the Fifth Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) upheld the seizure of assets belonging to Divino Alves dos Santos, former Director of Administration of the Banco Regional de Brasília (BRB). The former director is accused of forming a criminal organization, embezzling public funds, improperly waiving bidding procedures, and money laundering.
Divino Alves was one of those indicted in Operation Aquarela, a joint operation by the Civil Police, the Federal Revenue Service, and the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, launched in June 2007 to combat the misappropriation of public funds. His assets and financial holdings were frozen by the 1st Criminal Court of the Special Judicial District of the Federal District.
In the judgment of the writ of mandamus, the Court of Justice of the Federal District (TJDF) upheld the freeze, but partially granted the order only to release a current account used to receive salary and retirement benefits.
The defense argued that the former director's right to property had been violated. They further claimed that Law 8.666/93, which regulates public bidding and contracts, does not provide for the seizure of assets, and that the alleged crimes were not related to the origin of the blocked assets. Finally, they maintained that it was impossible to keep all assets blocked, even for the purpose of compensating for damages.
Definitive nature
The rapporteur for the case, Minister Laurita Vaz, stated that the nature of the asset freeze is definitive, both in the strict sense and as a termination of the merits of the case. Therefore, it should be reviewed through an appeal and not through a writ of mandamus.
Minister Laurita Vaz recalled that the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) has several rulings rejecting the use of a writ of mandamus to replace the consideration of a case through ordinary legal channels. She noted that clearly illegal or abusive decisions may be exceptions, but this is no longer the case in this process. Furthermore, a writ of mandamus could only be used in cases of risk of irreparable harm, which, once again, is not indicated in the present case file.
Laurita Vaz further emphasized that the seizure was "reasonable and proportionate," as it was carried out to guarantee the reimbursement of "substantial public funds" that had been misappropriated. There was also clear evidence of authorship and materiality of the crimes.