Requião publishes report on the law against abuse of authority.

Paraná 247 - Senator Roberto Requião (PMDB-PR) published this Monday (5) the draft report on the bill that punishes judges, prosecutors and attorneys who commit the crime of abuse of authority. The document has 23 pages and should be considered this Tuesday (6) in the Senate plenary. 

In a commentary for radio stations this Monday (5), the parliamentarian again defended the approval of the bill that defines the crimes of abuse of authority. According to the congressman, the main victims of abuse are the poorest, who have no one to defend them. As an example, he cited that 45% of prisoners in Brazil are currently detained provisionally, that is, without trial. There are cases, the senator said, of prisoners without formal charges, without indictment or trial detained for 14 years.

A report in the newspaper O Globo this Monday, the 5th, says that while explaining the changes in the report, Senator Roberto Requião allegedly insulted Judge Sérgio Moro. "It's an opportunity to improve the law. Now is not the time to vote, why? Oh, go to hell, Sérgio Moro," Requião reportedly said, according to O Globo. Read here the report. The 247 He even went so far as to repeat the statement. The senator vehemently denied ever having insulted the magistrate. 

Watch the video where he talks about the project report:

Below, read the full text of the draft:

Minutes

OPINION NO. ____, OF 2016

From the PLENARY, replacing the COMMITTEE ON THE CONSOLIDATION OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND REGULATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, regarding Senate Bill (PLS) No. 280 of 2016, by Senator Renan Calheiros, which defines the crimes of abuse of authority and provides other measures..

Rapporteur: Senator ROBERTO REQUIÃO

I – REPORT

Senate Bill (PLS) No. 280 of 2016 defines categorically Crimes of abuse of authority, committed by public agents in a broad sense, encompassing public servants and those equated to them, as well as members of the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Judiciary and Legislative branches at all levels of Public Administration – federal, state, district, and municipal.

According to the proposed law, crimes of abuse of authority will be prosecuted through public action conditioned upon a complaint from the victim or a request from the Minister of Justice. Private action is permitted if the Public Prosecutor's Office does not file charges within fifteen days of receiving the investigation or the victim's complaint. However, the criminal action will be unconditional public action in cases involving multiple victims or if there is a risk to the life, physical integrity, or professional standing of the victim who wishes to exercise their right to file a complaint.

The proposal establishes, as a consequence of the conviction, the obligation to compensate for the damage caused by the crime, with the criminal court setting the minimum amount of compensation, considering the losses suffered by the victim. In the case of recidivism, the conviction also results in the loss of the public office, mandate, or function, regardless of the sentence imposed.

In addition to the penalty, the crime of abuse of authority has repercussions in the civil and administrative spheres. According to Article 7 of the proposed law, civil and administrative liability is independent of criminal liability, and the existence of the fact or the identity of its perpetrator cannot be questioned when these issues have been decided in criminal court. However, according to the interpretation of Article 8 of the proposal, a criminal sentence that recognizes that the act was committed in a state of necessity, in legitimate self-defense, in strict compliance with a legal duty, or in the regular exercise of a right excludes civil and administrative liability.

According to the provisions of Article 39, the procedure for procedural acts related to crimes defined in the PLS is that of ordinary proceedings, as provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP).

The bill also introduces several changes to existing legislation.

The Child and Adolescent Statute (ECA) adds an article to establish that, in the case of crimes foreseen in that statute, committed with abuse of authority, the loss of office, function or elective mandate, foreseen in art. 92, I, of the Penal Code (CP), will only apply in the case of recidivism, but will be independent, in this case, of the penalty applied to the recidivist.

Law No. 9.296, of July 24, 1996, amends the wording of Article 10, which defines the crime of interception of telephone, computer and telematic communication flow, or environmental eavesdropping, without judicial authorization, to (i) modify the prescribed custodial sentence, from seclusion from 2 to 4 years old detention (i) from 1 to 4 years; (ii) add equivalent criminal offenses for the agent who promotes the breach of bank, data, tax, telephone or financial secrecy without judicial authorization or outside the cases permitted by law, or who makes public, before the criminal action has been initiated, reports, documents or papers obtained as a result of telephone interception, computer and telematic communication flow interception, environmental eavesdropping, breach of bank, tax, telephone or financial secrecy duly authorized; (iii) subject the agent to the regime of sanctions provided for in specific legislation, in the case of the crime having been committed with abuse of authority.

In Law No. 7.960, of December 21, 1989, which provides for temporary detention.This amendment amends Article 2 to stipulate that the arrest warrant must necessarily contain the duration of the temporary detention as well as the date on which the detainee must be released. Once this period has elapsed, the detainee must be released by the custodial officer, regardless of a court order, unless the temporary detention is extended or preventive detention is ordered. It also establishes that the day the warrant is executed must be included in the calculation of the term.

Furthermore, the bill revokes Law No. 4.898, of December 9, 1965, which It regulates the Right of Representation and the process of Civil and Criminal Administrative Liability in cases of abuse of authority.In addition to the following provisions of the Penal Code: § 2 of art. 150 (violation of domicile committed by a public official with abuse of power); § 1 of art. 316 (excessive exaction) and arts. 322 (arbitrary violence) and 350 (arbitrary exercise or abuse of power), because they are contemplated, with adjustments, in the text of the proposal.

In the justification, the author argues that Law No. 4.898 of 1965, which currently regulates the matter, is outdated and needs updating to better and more effectively protect the fundamental rights and guarantees enshrined in the Federal Constitution, with regard to their violation or mitigation through acts committed with abuse of authority.

Public hearings were held to provide information on the matter, including a plenary debate with the participation of magistrates of the stature of Supreme Federal Court Justice Gilmar Ferreira Mendes and Federal Judge Sérgio Fernando Moro, who presented several suggestions for improving the text of the bill.

The following amendments were presented.

Amendment No. 01-CECR, by Senator Romero Jucá, of a substitutive nature, makes important changes to the PLS (Senate Bill). In the sole paragraph of Article 4, it requires, for the loss of office, mandate or function, recidivism in the practice of a crime involving abuse of authority, and not mere recidivism in any type of crime. In Article 21, while the PLS refers to invasion of property extraneous, the Substitute alludes to immobile "Those who are not involved," a concept obviously much broader than that of "home." In Article 22, the Substitute Bill excludes the involvement of third parties in telephone interceptions from the criminal offense. Otherwise, it maintains the essence of the original bill, only improving its wording and legislative technique.

Amendment No. 02-CECR, by Senator Fernando Collor, modifies the wording of Article 36 of the PLS (Senate Bill), to broaden the scope of the prevarication described therein, so that the conduct of "failing to order the initiation of investigative proceedings to ascertain the practice of..." constitutes a crime. criminal offense or administrative misconduct when one has the knowledge and competence to do so,” no longer restricting itself to the crimes foreseen in the bill itself.

.

.

.

II – ANALYSIS

We observed no unconstitutionality or legal flaws in Bill No. 280 of 2016, nor any procedural obstacles. The Bill deals with matters of criminal law, the legislative competence for which is attributed to the Union, pursuant to Article 22, I, of the Federal Constitution, and in this case, parliamentary initiative is legitimate, as provided for in Article 61 of the Political Charter.

On the merits, we consider the proposed law to be appropriate and timely.

It is worth noting that the proposal is relevant to one of the objectives of the II REPUBLICAN STATE PACT FOR A MORE ACCESSIBLE, AGILE AND EFFECTIVE JUSTICE SYSTEM, which is to seek the "improvement and strengthening of State institutions for greater effectiveness of the penal system in combating violence and crime, through public security policies combined with social actions and protection of human dignity", as well as to one of the commitments to which the signatories of the aforementioned pact are bound, in the sense of "increasing measures aimed at ensuring greater effectiveness in the recognition of rights".

It is worth emphasizing that this Republican Pact was signed by the Heads of the Branches of Government of the Union. on April 13, 2009The subject matter of the bill, therefore, represents nothing new, especially since, as the justification correctly states, its provisions reflect the convergence reached after rich discussions and debates within the Interinstitutional Management Committee of the aforementioned Republican Pact, composed of representatives of various branches of government, including the Judiciary.

Essentially, the bill definitively establishes thirty types of crimes, not to mention equivalent offenses, precisely describing each of the criminalized conducts, which represents a clear advantage over the vague and imprecise definition provided in Article 3 of Law No. 4.898 of 1965. In this respect, then, the bill confers certainty and legal security to the criminal legal system, which is not the case in the text of the current law.

Indeed, Article 3 of Law No. 4.898 of 1965 establishes that any attempt to:

1. a) to freedom of movement;
2. b) to the inviolability of the home;
3. c) to the confidentiality of correspondence;
4. d) to freedom of conscience and belief;
5. e) to the free exercise of religious worship;
6. f) to freedom of association;
7. g) to the legal rights and guarantees ensured for exercising the right to vote;
8. h) the right to assembly;
9. i) to the physical safety of the individual;
10. j) to the legal rights and guarantees ensured for the exercise of the profession.

It is evident that, by presenting an illustrative list without a precise description of conduct, Article 3 of this Law does not define crimes, since the disregard for the principle of legality in criminal matters is clear and indisputable. Only in Article 4 does Law No. 4.898 of 1965 define crimes, but it does so only in relation to nine types of conduct.

From our perspective, the proposed law did well in expanding the types of crimes related to abuse of authority to encompass clearly reprehensible conduct that was not previously defined in the legal system.

Nevertheless, the draft text can and should be improved.

From the outset, it is necessary to include a provision to avoid highlighting the configuration of abuse of authority, thus preventing the criminalization of mere divergence in legal interpretation. We do this, inspired by the suggestion presented by Federal Judge Sérgio Moro, which we have adopted with adjustments, right in Article 1, by including a single paragraph, so that, due to its position in the legal text, it permeates and guides the interpretation of the criminal offenses described subsequently.

Thus, we establish that an act supported by divergent interpretations or jurisprudence, even if minority but current, does not constitute the crime of abuse of authority, as well as an act performed in accordance with an acceptable and reasonable assessment of the determining facts and circumstances, provided that, in any case, it does not contradict the letter of the law, nor has it been committed with abuse of authority.

With regard to the perpetrator of the crime, we prefer to adopt a very broad definition, inspired by the constant in the Law of Administrative Impropriety.

Regarding the procedure, we see no advantage in establishing, as the proposed law does, that criminal prosecution for crimes of abuse of authority be conditional upon a complaint or request from the Minister of Justice. Incidentally, it is worth noting that the "complaint" referred to in the current Law on Abuse of Authority is not... admissibility conditionbut mere communication or crime newsIt simply involves the victim reporting the incident so that the facts can be investigated.

In this sense, Daniel Ferreira de Lira teaches,

"Crimes of abuse of authority are subject to unconditional public prosecution. The complaint mentioned in Article 12 is not the procedural requirement of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but rather the right to petition against abuse of power as provided for in Article 5, XXXIV, 'a', of the Constitution."[1]

Therefore, under the current legal system, the action is public and unconditional. The "representation" referred to in Law No. 4.898 of 1965 only resembles, in name, the representation provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure, thus considered in the legal sense of the term.

As is known, a formal complaint should serve to prevent the victim from being victimized a second time, as, for example, in the crime of endangering others with venereal disease (article 130 of the Penal Code). Requiring a formal complaint as a condition for the admissibility of prosecution for crimes of abuse of authority, besides being inappropriate, could lead to many crimes of this nature going unpunished.

In view of this, it is appropriate to establish that the action, in this case, will be an unconditional public action. This understanding, moreover, accepts a suggestion contained in Technical Note PGR/SRI No. 086/2016, from the Secretariat of Institutional Relations of the Attorney General's Office.

Turning to the specific crimes, I note that we incorporated into the substitute bill we presented at the end practically all the suggestions forwarded by Minister Gilmar Mendes. The suggestions aimed to provide greater legal certainty to those applying the law, either by better specifying the types of crimes or by providing safeguards to prevent exceptional circumstances from causing injustice to those involved.

We also welcomed several contributions forwarded by the leadership of this House, which reflects the legitimacy of the process of constructing the text we present. Among the suggestions, it is worth mentioning the classification of the crime against the rights or prerogatives of lawyers, as well as the inclusion of guarantees in favor of the independence of the judicial authority and members of the Public Prosecutor's Office.

With regard to Amendment No. 01-CECR, we consider the changes relating to articles 4, 21 and 22 of the PLS to be valid.

We also take advantage of the modification proposed by Amendment No. 02-CECR, which improves the wording of the type described in Article 36 of the bill.

 

III – VOTE

In light of the foregoing, the vote is in favor of the constitutionality, legality, and procedural regularity of Senate Bill No. 280 of 2016, and, on the merits, for its approval. approval, in the form of the following substitute amendment, rendering the other amendments presented moot:

AMENDMENT NO. -PLEN (SUBSTITUTE)

(SENATE BILL NO. 280, OF 2016)

It defines the crimes of abuse of authority and provides other measures.

The National Congress decrees:

CHAPTER I

General Provisions

Art.1 This Law defines the crimes of abuse of authority, committed by a public agent, whether a civil servant or not, who, in the exercise of their functions or under the pretext of exercising them, abuses the power that has been attributed to them.

Sole ParagraphAn act supported by divergent interpretation, precedent, or jurisprudence, as well as one performed in accordance with an acceptable and reasonable assessment of the determining facts and circumstances, does not constitute the crime of abuse of authority, provided that, in any case, it does not contradict the literal wording of this law.

CHAPTER II

Of the Subjects of the Crime

Art. 2º The active subject of the crime of abuse of authority is any public agent, whether or not a civil servant, of the direct, indirect, or foundational administration of any of the branches of government of the Union, the States, the Federal District, the Municipalities, or Territories, including, but not limited to:

I – public servants and military personnel or persons equivalent to them;

II – members of the Legislative Branch;

III – members of the Judiciary;

IV – members of the Public Prosecutor's Office;

V – members of the courts or audit boards.

Sole ParagraphFor the purposes of this Law, a public agent is considered to be anyone who exercises, even temporarily or without remuneration, by election, appointment, designation, contract or any other form of investiture or bond, a mandate, position, employment or function in the entities mentioned in caput.

CHAPTER III

Regarding Criminal Proceedings

Art. 3º The crimes outlined in this Law are subject to unconditional public prosecution.

CHAPTER IV

On the Effects of Conviction and Restrictive Penalties

Section I

On the Effects of Conviction

Art. 4º These are the effects of the conviction:

I – to establish the obligation to compensate for the damage caused by the crime, with the judge setting in the sentence the minimum amount for reparation of the damages caused by the offense, considering the losses suffered by the victim;

II – the loss of office, mandate or public function, in the case of recidivism in the crime of abuse of authority.

Sole ParagraphThe loss of office, mandate, or function must be declared, with justification, in the judgment and will be independent of the penalty applied.

Section II

Regarding Restrictive Penalties of Rights

Art. 5º The alternative penalties to imprisonment provided for in this Law are:

I – providing services to the community or to public entities;

II – suspension from the exercise of the position, function or mandate, for a period of 1 (one) to 6 (six) months, with loss of salary and benefits;

III – prohibition from exercising functions of a police or military nature in the municipality where the crime was committed and in the municipality where the victim resides and works, for a period of 1 (one) to 3 (three) years.

Sole ParagraphRestrictive penalties can be applied independently or cumulatively.

CHAPTER V

Regarding Sanctions of a Civil and Administrative Nature

Art. 6º The penalties stipulated in this Law will be applied independently of any applicable civil or administrative sanctions.

Sole ParagraphThe judge, the member of the Public Prosecutor's Office, or the police authority who receives the complaint from the victim, as well as the Minister of Justice, in the case of a request, must report the act considered unlawful to the National Council of Justice or the National Council of the Public Prosecutor's Office, if applicable, or to the competent authority, with a view to investigating misconduct.

Art. 7º Civil and administrative liabilities are independent of criminal liability, and the existence of the fact or the identity of its perpetrator cannot be questioned again once these issues have been decided in criminal court.

Art. 8º A criminal sentence that recognizes that the act was committed in a state of necessity, in legitimate self-defense, in strict compliance with a legal duty, or in the regular exercise of a right, constitutes res judicata in civil matters, as well as in administrative-disciplinary matters.

CHAPTER VI

Of Crimes and Punishments

Art. 9º To order preventive detention, search and seizure of a minor, or other measures depriving someone of their liberty, in clear violation of legal provisions:

Penalty – imprisonment, from 1 (one) to 4 (four) years, and a fine.

Sole ParagraphThe same penalties apply to a judicial authority that fails to do so within a reasonable timeframe.

I – to release someone from manifestly illegal imprisonment;

II – to replace pretrial detention with a different precautionary measure or to grant provisional release, when clearly applicable;

III – to grant a preliminary injunction or order of habeas corpus, when clearly applicable.

Art 10. To order the coercive transport of a witness or suspect that is manifestly unwarranted or without prior summons to appear in court.

Penalty – imprisonment, from 1 (one) to 4 (four) years, and a fine.

Art 11. To carry out the capture, arrest, or search and seizure of a person who is not caught in the act of committing a crime or without a written order from a judicial authority, except in cases of military transgression or strictly military crime, as defined by law, or of a convicted or interned fugitive.

Penalty – imprisonment, from 1 (one) to 4 (four) years, and a fine.

Art 12Unjustifiably failing to report an arrest in flagrante delicto to the judicial authority within the legal timeframe:

Penalty – imprisonment, from 6 (six) months to 2 (two) years, and a fine.

Sole ParagraphThe same penalties apply to anyone who:

I – fails to immediately notify the judicial authority that ordered the execution of a temporary or preventive arrest;

II – fails to immediately notify any person's family or a person designated by them of their arrest and their whereabouts;

III – fails to deliver to the prisoner, within 24 (twenty-four) hours, the notice of charges, signed by the authority, stating the reason for the arrest and the names of the arresting officer and witnesses;

IV – prolongs the execution of a sentence involving deprivation of liberty, temporary detention, preventive detention, security measure, or internment, failing, without just and extremely exceptional reason, to execute the release order immediately upon receipt, or to promote the release of the prisoner when the judicial or legal term has expired.

Art 13To coerce a prisoner or detainee, through violence, serious threats, or reduction of their capacity to resist, into:

I – to exhibit oneself or have one's body or part of it exhibited to public curiosity;

II – to submit to a humiliating situation or constraint not authorized by law;

III – producing evidence against oneself or against a third party.

Penalty – imprisonment for 1 (one) to 4 (four) years, and a fine, without prejudice to the penalty imposed for the violence.

Art 14To photograph or film, allow to be photographed or filmed, disclose or publish film or footage of a prisoner, inmate, suspect, indictee, or victim in a criminal proceeding, without their consent or with authorization obtained through illegal coercion.

Penalty – imprisonment, from 6 (six) months to 2 (two) years, and a fine.

Sole ParagraphThere will be no crime if the purpose of the photograph or filming is to produce evidence in a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings, or to document the conditions of the penal establishment.

Art 15Failure to advise the person under investigation or accused of their right to remain silent and their right to be assisted by a lawyer or public defender.

Penalty – imprisonment for 1 (one) to 4 (four) years, and a fine.

Sole ParagraphThe same penalties apply to anyone who:

I – continues with the questioning of those who have decided to exercise their right to remain silent or those who have chosen to be assisted by a lawyer or public defender, without a defender;

II – compels a person to testify, under threat of imprisonment, when that person is required to maintain secrecy or confidentiality by reason of their function, ministry, office, or profession.

Art 16Failure to identify oneself to the detainee at the time of their capture, or when required to do so during their detention or imprisonment, as well as falsely identifying oneself:

Penalty – imprisonment, from 6 (six) months to 2 (two) years, and a fine.

Sole ParagraphThe same applies to anyone who:

I – as the person responsible for interrogation, in the context of an investigation into a criminal offense, fails to identify himself to the prisoner;

II – assumes a false identity, position, or function for himself, under the same circumstances as in the previous paragraph.

Art 17To subject a prisoner, detainee, or person apprehended to the use of handcuffs or any other object that restricts the movement of their limbs, when there is clearly no resistance to the arrest, threat of escape, or risk to the physical integrity of the prisoner, the authority, or a third party:

Penalty – imprisonment, from 6 (six) months to 2 (two) years, and a fine.

Single paragraph. The penalty is doubled if:

I - the inmate is under eighteen years of age;

II – the detainee, inmate, or person apprehended is visibly pregnant, or whose pregnancy was reported at the time of arrest or apprehension;

III - the event occurs in a penitentiary.

Art 18Subjecting a prisoner to police interrogation during nighttime rest hours, unless caught in the act of committing a crime or if, with proper assistance, they consent to give a statement:

Penalty – imprisonment, from 6 (six) months to 2 (two) years, and a fine.

Art 19To unjustifiably prevent or delay the forwarding of a prisoner's petition to the competent judicial authority for assessment of the legality of their arrest or the circumstances of their custody.

Penalty – imprisonment, from 1 (one) to 4 (four) years, and a fine.

Sole ParagraphThe magistrate who, aware of the impediment or delay, fails to take steps to remedy it, or, not being competent to decide on the arrest, fails to forward the request to the competent judicial authority, incurs the same penalties.

Art 20Preventing, without just cause, a prisoner from meeting with their lawyer:

Penalty – imprisonment, from 6 (six) months to 2 (two) years, and a fine.

Sole ParagraphThe same penalties apply to anyone who prevents a prisoner, a defendant released on bail, or a person under investigation from meeting with their lawyer or legal representative for a reasonable period before a court hearing, and from sitting next to them and communicating with them during the hearing, except during interrogations or in the case of a hearing held by videoconference.

Art 21To coerce a prisoner with the intent of obtaining sexual advantage or favor:

Penalty – imprisonment, from 1 (one) year to 4 (four) years, and a fine.

Art 22Keeping prisoners of both sexes in the same cell or confinement space:

Penalty – imprisonment, from 1 (one) to 4 (four) years, and a fine.

Sole ParagraphThe same penalties apply to anyone who keeps a child or adolescent in the same cell as an adult or in an unsuitable environment, in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of Children and Adolescents.

Art 23To invade or enter, clandestinely, cunningly or against the will of the occupant, another person's property or its premises, as well as to remain there under the same conditions, without a court order and outside the conditions established by law:

Penalty – imprisonment, from 1 (one) to 4 (four) years, and a fine.

• 1. The same penalties apply to anyone who, in the manner prescribed in caput:

I – coerces someone, through violence or serious threat, to grant him access to a property or its premises;

II – executes a search and seizure warrant on someone else's property or its premises, mobilizing vehicles, personnel, or weaponry in an ostentatious and disproportionate manner, or in any way exceeding the limits of the judicial authorization, to expose the investigated party to a situation of humiliation;

III – executes a search and seizure warrant at a residence after 21 PM or before 5 AM.

• 2. There will be no crime if the entry is to provide assistance, or when there are well-founded indications that suggest the need for entry due to a situation of flagrant crime or disaster.

Art 24To practice or order the practice of physical or moral violence against a person, in the exercise of one's function or under the pretext of exercising it:

Penalty – imprisonment for 1 (one) to 4 (four) years, and a fine, without prejudice to the penalty imposed for the violence.

Art 25To artificially alter, during an investigation or legal proceeding, the state of a place, thing, or person, with the aim of evading responsibility, exposing a person to embarrassment or public humiliation, or criminally charging someone or aggravating their liability.

Penalty – imprisonment, from 1 (one) to 4 (four) years, and a fine.

Sole ParagraphThe same penalties apply to anyone who commits the act with the intent to:

I – to be exempt from civil or administrative liability for excesses committed in the course of an investigation;

II – to omit data or information, as well as to disclose incomplete data or information, in order to divert the course of the investigation, inquiry or process.

Art 26. To coerce, through violence or serious threat, an employee or worker of a public or private hospital institution into admitting for treatment a person who has already died, with the aim of altering the location or time of a crime, thereby hindering its investigation;

Penalty – imprisonment for 1 (one) to 4 (four) years, and a fine, in addition to the penalty corresponding to the violence.

Art 27To obtain evidence by manifestly unlawful means or to use evidence whose unlawful origin is known, in the course of an investigative or supervisory procedure.

Penalty: imprisonment, from 1 (one) to 4 (four) years, and a fine.

Art 28Inducing or instigating a person to commit a criminal offense with the aim of capturing them in the act, outside the circumstances provided for by law:

Penalty – imprisonment, from 6 (six) months to 2 (two) years, and a fine.

Sole ParagraphIf the victim is caught in the act, the penalty is imprisonment for 1 (one) to 4 (four) years, and a fine.

Art 29To request or initiate an investigation into a criminal or administrative offense against someone simply because of their artistic expression, thought, political or philosophical conviction, belief, worship, or religion, in the absence of any indication of a crime having been committed.

Penalty – imprisonment, from 6 (six) months to 2 (two) years, and a fine.

Art 30Disclosing a recording or excerpt of a recording unrelated to the evidence intended to be produced, exposing the intimacy or private life, or harming the honor or image of the investigated or accused party:

Penalty – imprisonment, from 1 (one) to 4 (four) years, and a fine.

Art 31Providing false information about judicial, police, tax, or administrative proceedings with the aim of harming the interests of the person under investigation.

Penalty – imprisonment, from 6 (six) months to 2 (two) years, and a fine.

Sole ParagraphThe same penalties apply to anyone who, with the same intent, omits data or information about a legally relevant and non-confidential fact.

Art 32To initiate or proceed with criminal, civil, or administrative prosecution through abuse of authority:

Penalty – imprisonment, from 1 (one) to 5 (five) years, and a fine.

Art 33Extending the investigation without justification, delaying it to the detriment of the person being investigated or audited.

Penalty – imprisonment, from 6 (six) months to 2 (two) years, and a fine.

Sole ParagraphThe same penalties apply to anyone who, in the absence of a deadline for the execution or conclusion of the procedure, extends it without justification, delaying it to the detriment of the investigated or inspected party.

Art 34To deny the defense attorney, without just cause, access to the preliminary investigation files, the detailed report, the inquiry, or any other investigative procedure for a criminal, civil, or administrative offense, as well as to prevent the obtaining of copies, except for investigations where confidentiality is essential:

Penalty – imprisonment, from 6 (six) months to 2 (two) years, and a fine.

Sole ParagraphThe same penalties apply to anyone who, in violation of the law or without express justification, decrees secrecy in the proceedings.

Art 35To demand information or compliance with an obligation, including the duty to do or not to do something, without express legal support:

Penalty – imprisonment, from 6 (six) months to 2 (two) years, and a fine.

Art 36Failure to correct, either on one's own initiative or upon request, despite having the authority to do so, a relevant error that one knows exists in a process or procedure:

Penalty – imprisonment, from 3 (three) to 6 (six) months, and a fine.

Art 37Failure to initiate investigative proceedings to ascertain the commission of a criminal offense or administrative misconduct, when one has knowledge of them and the authority to do so:

Penalty – imprisonment, from 6 (six) months to 2 (two) years, and a fine.

Art 38To prohibit, hinder, or by any means prevent the peaceful assembly, association, or gathering of people for a legitimate purpose:

Penalty - detention, from 3 (three) months to 1 (um) year, and a fine.

Art 39To decree, in judicial proceedings, the unavailability of financial assets in an amount that excessively exceeds the estimated value for the satisfaction of the debt of the party:

Penalty – imprisonment, from 1 (one) to 4 (four) years, and a fine.

Art 40. To request access to a case file under consideration by a collegiate body, with the intent of delaying its progress or postponing the judgment:

Penalty – imprisonment, from 6 (six) months to 2 (two) years, and a fine.

CHAPTER VII

Of the Procedure

Art 41The provisions of Decree-Law No. 3.689 of October 3, 1941 – Code of Criminal Procedure, and Law No. 9.099 of September 26, 1995, shall apply, where applicable, to the prosecution and trial of the offenses provided for in this Law.

CHAPTER VIII

Final Provisions

Art 42Article 2 of Law No. 7.960, of December 21, 1989, shall now read as follows:

"Art. 2º ........................................................................ ..

…………………………………………………….

• 4-A. The arrest warrant must necessarily contain the period of temporary detention established in Article 2, as well as the date on which the detainee must be released.

.............................................................................................

• 7. Once the period stipulated in the arrest warrant has expired, the authority responsible for custody must, regardless of any new order from the judicial authority, immediately release the prisoner, unless it has already been notified of the extension of the temporary arrest or the decree of preventive detention.
• 8. For the purpose of calculating the period of temporary detention, the day on which the arrest warrant is executed is included. (NR)

Art 43. Article 10 of Law No. 9.296, of July 24, 1996, shall now read as follows:

"Art 10It is a crime to intercept telephone, computer, or telematic communications, to conduct wiretapping, or to breach judicial secrecy without judicial authorization or for purposes not authorized by law.

Penalty – imprisonment for two to four years, and a fine.

Sole paragraph. The judicial authority that orders the execution of conduct described in [the following] shall be subject to the same penalties. caput, with an objective not authorized by law or with abuse of power.” (NR)

Art 44Law No. 8.069, of July 13, 1990, shall be amended to include the following Article 244-C:

"Art. 244-CFor crimes foreseen in this Law, committed by public servants with abuse of authority, the effect of the conviction foreseen in article 92, item I, of Decree-Law nº 2.848, of December 7, 1940 (Penal Code), will only apply in case of recidivism.

Sole ParagraphThe loss of office, mandate, or function, in this case, will be independent of the penalty applied in the case of recidivism.

Art 45Law No. 8.906, of July 4, 1994, shall be amended to include the following Article 7-B:

"Crime against the right or prerogative of a lawyer"

Art. 7º-BViolating the rights or prerogatives of a lawyer as outlined in items II to V of article 7:

Penalty – imprisonment for six months to two years, and a fine.

Art 46Law No. 4.898 of December 9, 1965, paragraph 2 of article 150 and article 350, both of Decree-Law No. 2.848 of December 7, 1940 (Penal Code), are hereby repealed.

Art 47. This Law shall enter into force 60 (sixty) days after its publication.

Committee Room,

, President

Rapporteur

[1] “Crimes of abuse of authority: a current analysis of Law No. 4.898/65 in light of the jurisprudence of the superior courts” (Portal Âmbito Jurídico: http://www.ambito-juridico.com.br/site/?n_link=revista_artigos_leitura&artigo_id=11734)