The minister, of the (Supreme Federal Court), denied on Thursday (24) the last appeals presented by the former president and determined the execution of the penalty imposed on the former president.
The defense filed funds against the decision of eight years and ten months in prison.
According to the rapporteur, Collor only repeated arguments already faced by the Court at other times, which would show a stance that would serve to delay the serving of the sentence.
“In this case, the embargo only reiterates arguments already faced both in the conviction judgment and the judgment that decided the first embargoes of declaration, which shows procrastinatory intent in opposition to this appeal,” he said in the decision.
Collor for the crimes of passive and money laundering. The penalty was set at the time in eight years and ten months in prison.
The defense argued to the Supreme Court that the accusations are based only on award-winning allegations and that there was no evidence against the former president.
The complaint had been filed by the PGR (Attorney General of the Republic) in August 2015, under. He was accused of receiving bribes from a corruption scheme at BR Distribuidora, a subsidiary company of Petrobras.
According to the conviction, the former president influenced the company’s command and boards, from 2010 to 2014, to ensure the signing 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.
In practice, the defense was trying to reduce the penalty for passive corruption to a level that would make the crime prescribe. In this scenario, the former president would have to comply only the conviction for money laundering, stipulated in four years and six months.
The understanding of the Supreme, however, was unfavorable to Collor. By 6 votes against 4, the plenary understood that the defense request to review the conviction did not deserve to prosper.
