According to records of the local Real Estate Registry Office, magistrate sold the businessman, through J. Bertol Incorporadora Ltda., A high -end property in Porto Seguro condominium,
A process in the 1st Civil Court of the District of Sorriso, in Mato Grosso, is generating controversy not only for its expressive value – over R $ 40 million – but also for possible conflicts of interest that put the impartiality of the responsible judge in check. The holder of this column had access to the execution action, identified by number 1003999-64.2025.8.11.0040, which was moved by Bertol Indústria de Fertilizantes Ltda. . and others. The process was attributed to magistrate Paula Saide Biagi Messen Mussi Casagrande.
However, what could be just another commercial dispute gained worrying contours after the revelation of a real estate transaction between the judge and businessman Juliano Luiz Bertol, partner of the company that figures as the author of the action. According to records of the local real estate registry office, the magistrate sold to him, through J. Bertol Incorporadora Ltda., A high standard property in Porto Seguro condominium, valued at $ 4 million. The fact that the buyer is the owner of the plaintiff of the case under judgment by the judge herself raises questions about the integrity of the procedure.
Although the real estate transaction is not illegal, the nature of the business, the significant value and the absence of any public statement of suspicion raises doubts about the judge’s exemption to decide on a cause that directly involves his recent buyer. Law experts point out that the Code of Civil Procedure, in article 145, items I and III, states that the judge must declare himself suspicious if he maintains close friendship with one of the parties or if he has financial ties with them. Recent business relations of great value can compromise trust in judicial impartiality.
“The preservation of trust in the judiciary is fundamental,” says a professor of constitutional law who preferred not to identify himself. “When a judge who is judging a millionaire action makes a $ 4 million business with the owner of the plaintiff, it is prudent that she declares her suspicion.” The property, located in one of the most luxurious condominiums in the city, further highlights the connection between the parties involved. To date, there are no records that the judge has spoken out about its possible impediment, and there were no requests for removal from the Public Prosecution Service or the parties of the process.
This silence is worrying, especially considering that injunction decisions in execution actions can lead to immediate equity blocks and direct impacts on business activities. The apparent lack of impartiality can compromise the credibility of the process and pave the way for the contestation of future decisions. The absence of transparency in conducting the case generates distrust and endangers the integrity of the judgment. In addition to the real estate transaction, other factors accentuate the perception of bias.
Documents obtained by this column reveal:
- Recent commercial relationship: The business between the judge and the Bertol group occurred shortly before the lawsuit filed, which weakens the notion of lack of a relevant bond.
- Economic Value of the Action: The process, which exceeds R $ 40 million, involves assets of great relevance and financial repercussion in the region.
- Conflict between functional duty and private interest: Judges are expected to refrain from acting on causes involving people with whom they have significant economic relations.
- Risk of favoritism: Even if the judge claims to be ready to judge impartially, the judiciary itself recommends prudence and removal in situations that may lead to objective doubts.
The case of Bertol is not limited to procedural merit, but raises questions about the preservation of the principle of impartiality, one of the foundations of the Democratic Rule of Law. When judges perform substantial business with parts that have a direct interest in proceedings under their supervision, society’s confidence in the judiciary is undoubtedly compromised. The space of Young Pan It is open if Paula Saide Biagi Messen Mussen Casagrande wanted to speak up.
*This text does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the young Pan.
