Lucas Bove (-SP) made a new request to court last Monday (9) so that his ex-wife, influencer Cíntia Chagas, is prohibited from making publications that mention accusations of, requesting his pre-trial detention in case of non-compliance.
The communicator filed a police report against the deputy in September 2024, which he denies. The investigation runs under confidentiality.
In the file, to which the panel had access, the defense of the communicator speaks of attempted prior censorship and says that there is a “deliberate strategy of revitimization and attempt to manipulate public opinion against the woman who denounced him.”
In parallel to the police inquiry, Bove is the target of a process of cassation on the Alesp Ethics Council (). The case should be guided soon, but the expectation of both allies and opponents is that it be filed ,.
In charging the secrecy, the deputy’s lawyers cite a decision of November 26, 2024 who banned wounds from publicizing facts. They say she would have breached her when sharing a video on June 6, describing situations of abuse “suffered by independent women,” in the third person.
In response filed on Tuesday (10), Chagas lawyers argue that the request for arrest “for mere generic social publication” causes “astonishment and outrage” and lists occasions when the deputy would also have failed protective measures and publicly spoken on the subject.
The court denied a similar Bove request about two weeks ago. On May 26, Judge Carla Santos Balestreri, of the Barra Funda Criminal Forum, understood that there was no “unambiguous proof of breach of the precautionary measure”, after a demonstration of the Public Prosecution Service in the same direction.
The deputy had accused his ex-wife of ignoring confidentiality on May 5, in publications in which she auctioned her wedding dress and wrote a text encouraging women to denounce domestic violence. He argued that she tries to manipulate her millions of followers for profit.
The influencer had also requested the pre -trial detention of bove last year, for posts on the networks and statement at the Alesp (Legislative Assembly of SP). The magistrate at the time, however, acknowledged that he disregarded precautionary measures.
In a statement, the deputy’s lawyers stated that “the defense requested solely the establishment of police inquiry to investigate the crime of disobedience, as well as formulated exception of express prohibition of new publications, not the decree of pre -trial detention.”
Added that “the information about the petition of this defense could not and should not have been publicly disclosed […] and will be the target of a new request to seek authorship and participation in this criminal leakage. “
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
