The (Supreme Federal Court) formed a majority this Friday (8) to reject an appeal from the defense of the former president, convicted by .
The , scheduled to end on Monday (11). The score is 6-2 against Collor’s request to reduce the sentence.
The minister, rapporteur of the process, voted against Collor’s appeal. It was followed by , , , and .
The ministers voted to reduce the former president’s sentence. to judge the case because he worked in Lava Jato cases. The votes for and are missing.
This was the first appeal presented by Collor in the process. The former president’s defense may file new motions to request a reduction in the sentence. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, however, considers that appeals on issues already rejected are delaying — which could end the action and lead Collor to prison.
for the crimes of passive and money laundering. The sentence set the sentence at 8 years and 10 months in prison.
Collor’s defense informed that he will not comment. She tries, with the appeal, to change the dosimetry of the sentence and prevent him, even if convicted, from going to prison.
This is because, in the understanding of Collor’s defense, reducing the sentence for passive corruption to 4 years would make the crime time-barred. In this scenario, the former president would only have to serve the sentence for money laundering, stipulated at 4 years and 6 months.
The eventual reduction of the final sentence — from 8 years and 10 months to 4 years and 6 months — may also change the fulfillment of the sentence, going from a closed regime to a semi-open regime. Collor is a first-time offender, which can convert prison into community service.
This is the first process that could lead to the former president being arrested. It is not yet possible to know when Collor could be sent to prison, as the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence provides that convicts should only begin serving their sentence after all appeals have been exhausted (final and unappealable).
The complaint against the former president was presented by the PGR (Attorney General’s Office) in August 2015 within the scope of the . He was accused of receiving bribes from a corruption scheme at BR Distribuidora, a subsidiary of Petrobras.
According to the conviction, the former president would have influenced the company’s command and management, from 2010 to 2014, to guarantee the signing of contracts between the state-owned company and the construction company UTC. In return, Collor would have received R$20 million.
Proofs found in the money changer’s office, in addition to statements from collaborators in the operation, were used as evidence in the action against Collor.
Collor’s defense argued to the Supreme Court that the accusations against the former president are based only on plea bargains. Lawyer Marcelo Bessa said there was no evidence against his client.
In the appeal judged this week, the former president’s defense claims that the Supreme Court erred in defining the penalty for passive corruption. When voting for conviction, the ministers differed on the prison terms. On appeal, Collor’s lawyers say that the correct procedure would be to apply the lesser sentence.
Gilmar agreed with Collor’s defense request. He said that the Supreme Court plenary did not take into account the premise that, in a tie between divergent votes, the sentence most beneficial to the defendant prevails.
“In relation to the issue raised here, its sphere as a rule of judgment is relevant: as a democratic option for distributing the risk of miscarriage of justice, the situation of doubt should lead to decision-making that is more favorable to the defendant”, said Gilmar.
Rapporteur of the action, Minister Alexandre de Moraes stated that the defendants tried to change the sentences only due to non-compliance with the conviction. He received support from the majority of the plenary.
“The plaintiffs seek, in fact, to re-discuss points already decided by the Supreme Court in the judgment of this criminal action, invoking grounds that, under the pretext of seeking to remedy omissions, obscurities or contradictions, reveal mere non-compliance with the adopted conclusion”, he stated.
In addition to Collor, the defense is also trying to change the sentences of Pedro Paulo Bergamaschi de Leoni Ramos, accused of being the former president’s operator, for the same reasons.
Collor was president of the Republic from 1990 to 1992 — the first elected in direct elections after the military dictatorship — and left office amid a process of . At the time of the facts investigated, he was a senator for Alagoas.
UNDERSTAND COLLOR’S TRIAL IN
Or case
Fernando Collor is accused of receiving bribes in a corruption scheme involving BR Distribuidora, a subsidiary of Petrobras. Between 2010 and 2014, the then senator influenced the company’s management, which led to the signing of contracts with the construction company UTC. The conclusion of the agreements led to Collor receiving R$20 million
Lava Jato
The complaint against Collor was one of the first offered by the PGR (Attorney General’s Office) as part of Operation Lava Jato, in August 2015. The crimes are passive corruption, money laundering and criminal organization
Judgment
In May 2023, the Supreme Court decided, by 8 to 2, to convict the former president for the case, attributing to him the crimes of passive corruption and money laundering, leaving aside the criminal organization due to disagreement between the ministers. Kassio Nunes Marques and Gilmar Mendes voted for Collor’s acquittal
Regime
The Penal Code establishes that anyone sentenced to more than eight years in prison must begin serving it in a closed regime. The Supreme Court formed a majority against Collor’s defense appeal to reduce the sentence
Effects
Collor may still present a new appeal to delay the application of the sentence, such as motions for clarification, questioning omissions in the decision, and infringement motions, which question a non-unanimous ruling. As the first appeal was denied, the Supreme Court may understand new requests as delaying and order the arrest of the former president
Defense
The former president’s defense stated, at the time of the trial, that there was not enough evidence to convict. Collor himself has always denied having any participation in the scheme
