According to the STF minister, the former governor’s case is not related to decisions that recognized “collusion” between Sergio Moro and prosecutors
The minister, of the (Supreme Federal Court), denied, on Thursday (Nov 28, 2024) the request of the former governor of Rio de Janeiro to annul acts and decisions in a Lava Jato process that resulted in his preventive arrest in 2016.
Cabral’s defense requested that the Court’s minister extend to Cabral the effects of previous decisions, which recognized an alleged “collusion” between the then judge, now a senator for União Brasil do Paraná, and prosecutors from the MPF (Federal Public Ministry). The decision had already been applied previously in the understanding of Marcelo Odebrecht’s case.
Cabral’s case involved accusations of bribes paid by contractors in Comperj (Rio de Janeiro Petrochemical Complex) contracts. According to the complaint presented, construction company Andrade Gutierrez paid bribes to Cabral for projects in Rio de Janeiro. In the case of Comperj, the work went from R$820 million reais to R$1.18 billion.
For Toffoli, Cabral’s request has no direct relationship with the aforementioned precedent. According to the STF minister, to recognize possible collusion, it would be necessary to present new facts and evidence.
“The claim now under analysis is formulated based on the dialogues initially transcribed between the former magistrate and member of the Public Prosecutor’s Office with the aim of demonstrating direct collusion in relation to the applicant, with the cause of the dispute being in an extremely subjective situation, strange to that of the precedent invoked, insofar as the direct dialogues between judge and prosecutor reproduced in the initial report only concern the moment in which the complaint would be presented”stated the minister in his decision. Here is it (PDF – 96 kB).
Sérgio Cabral was sentenced by Moro to 14 years and 2 months in prison for passive corruption and money laundering. The former governor of Rio de Janeiro in December 2022. The decision, which was confirmed in the 2nd instance, awaits judgments in the STF and the STJ (Superior Court of Justice).
