Minister asks for a 17 -year sentence; Nelson Ribeiro participated in January 8 and took object autographed by Neymar
The Minister of (Supreme Federal Court) Alexandre de Moraes voted on Friday (20.jun.2025) to condemn Nelson Ribeiro Fonseca Júnior to 17 years in prison for participation on January 8. The man is accused of invading the National Congress during the acts and stealing a ball autographed by the player Neymar who was exposed in the Museum of the House of Representatives.
The vote was registered during virtual judgment of the 1st Panel of the Court, which analyzes the complaint of the (Attorney General’s Office). The trial will remain open until Monday (30.Jun), awaiting demonstrations of the other ministers of the collegiate (Flávio Dino, Carmen Lúcia, Luiz Fux and Cristiano Zanin). Read the vote of Moraes (PDF – 5 MB).
In addition to the prison sentence, Moraes determined that Nelson Ribeiro Fonseca Júnior is expected to pay $ 30 million for damage caused during the depredation. This value will be divided with others condemned by the same acts.
The conviction proposed by the minister includes the crimes of violent abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law, coup, qualified damage, deterioration of listed heritage, criminal association and qualified theft.
The episode took place during the invasion of the headquarters of the three powers in Brasilia. On January 28, 2023, Nelson introduced himself to the (Federal Police) in Sorocaba, São Paulo, returning the Furtado item.
Nelson Ribeiro confessed to having taken the ball autographed during the invasion of Congress. In his statement, he claimed that he found the object on the floor and decided “Protect it and return it later”.
Voting for the conviction, Moraes declared to be “It is important to highlight that the recognition of later repentance does not rule out the typicality of the conduct or exclude the criminal liability of the agent”.
In his defense presented to the Supreme, Nelson Ribeiro’s lawyers requested the acquittal of the accused.
The defense argued that there was no broad defense and contradictory during the process. The lawyers also questioned the legal jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to judge the case.
With information from .
