De Mello’s defense said, by means of a note issued on Thursday (24), to have received the request for arrest by the minister, (Supreme Federal Court), “with surprise and concern”, and said that the former president will surrender on Friday (25).
For Collor’s team, the appeal presented was appropriate, as well as, according to the note, other members of the Court recognized.
The former Mandanician for the crimes of passive and money laundering. The penalty was set at the time in eight years and ten months in prison.
“Anyway, former President Fernando Collor will present himself to comply with the decision determined by Minister Alexandre de Moraes, without prejudice to the expected judicial measures,” says the text.
According to lawyer Marcelo Bessa, who is part of Collor’s defense, the plenary should analyze the matter.
“There was no decision on the demonstrated prescription after res judicata to the Attorney General’s Office. Regarding the delaying character of the appeal, the defense showed that the majority of the members of the Court recognize their manifestation. Such matters would be up to the plenary to decide, at least in the extraordinary plenary session already designated for tomorrow,” he says.
For Moraes, the appeal presented by Collor only repeated arguments already faced by the Court at other times, which would show a stance that would serve to delay the fulfillment of the sentence.
The complaint had been filed by the (Attorney General’s Office) in August 2015, under. The former president was accused of receiving bribes from a corruption scheme at BR Distribuidora, a subsidiary company.
According to the conviction, the former president influenced the command and boards of BR Distribuidora, from 2010 to 2014, to ensure the signature of state contracts with the construction company UTC. In return, Collor would have received $ 20 million.
The Supreme Court judged in November 2024 Collor’s first appeal. The former president’s lawyers asked for a revision of the penalty of passive corruption, on the grounds that the deadline stipulated in the judgment was not equivalent to the average deadlines presented in the divergent votes of the ministers.
