A and the Federal have guided their members to refer to the summit of the investigations on parliamentary amendments started in the first instance that cites deputies, even if these authorities are not the target of the investigations.
The procedure, according to members of the summit of the two organs, has been adopted in open investigations last year and represents a new standard.
Generally, this only used to happen in cases where there was a possibility of direct involvement of authorities with irregularities.
Forum in the (Supreme Court) are federal and senators, as well as ministers of state and cuts such as the (Superior Court of Justice).
Sought, the Federal Police and the Federal Prosecutor’s Office did not speak.
The recommendation of the PF is that the corporation’s heads are consulted whenever, in the investigations, a mention of transfers indicated by some parliamentary. The idea is that this even happens that the findings do not involve an act of the deputy or senator.
This consultation serves as an orientation to define if the investigation should be under supervision of the Supreme.
In the Public Prosecution Service, the (Attorney General’s Office) did not deal with the matter directly with its members, but the theme has been communicated informally among the areas that coordinate the body’s work nationally.
The guidance is that investigations on amendments continue in the first instance if there is no mention of parliamentarians who allocated the value. However, they must be sent by precaution for PGR analysis if they bump into the name of authorities.
After analyzing the higher instance, the case returns to the place of origin, usually in the first instance, if there are no elements about the involvement of the authority.
One of the arguments for the recommendation is to avoid the eventual annulment of the case by ministers of the Supreme, on the grounds that the investigation was in improper instance.
In addition, there is a fear that inspection bodies – as an corregedorias and the CNMP (National Council of the Public Prosecution Service) – open administrative procedures against responsible investigators. Therefore, the measure is also cited as a way of preserving the prosecutors themselves who touch these cases.
As this is an orientation, there is no obligation for prosecutors to request the court to send these materials to the higher courts.
In practice, the suggestion reinforces something that has been done routinely by prosecutors who work in the states. Several members of the Federal Public Prosecution Service consulted by the report say they make these remittances for precaution and fear of retaliation.
The concern has increased since the management of NO PGR, which dismantled structures such as task forces and whose attorney general was seen as close to politicians and little active in defense of the institution.
Members of the Public Prosecution Service, however, also cite as a reason for precaution to the case of the prosecutor who investigated suspicions related to allies of the former president of (-al) in the case.
He eventually became the target of a disciplinary administrative process opened by CNMP already in the management, which chairs the board. The justification was that he was indirectly suspected of irregularities related to the deputy.
The inquiry was annulled by the STF Minister in 2023, on the grounds that the investigation disregarded the lira forum.
The PF has discussed the possibility of creating an objective norm in this regard and has even sought the Supreme to discuss the issue. Sought, the court did not speak up.
In recent years, the Court has recentracted investigations again. A good part refers to parliamentary amendments, but other findings have also returned to the court by decision of the ministers.
The trial that expanded the special forum this year maintained the court’s prerogative to judge cases of authorities even after they left the positions, which made a series of actions return to the Supreme Court.
Cases involving former parliamentarians and former ministers, for example, returned to the court, often at the request of the prosecutor.
Currently, one of the main inquiries involving amendments in the court is the DA, which was launched last year on suspicions of deviations of R $ 1.4 billion in contracts from DNOCS (National Department of Drought Works), a federal authority linked to the Ministry of Regional Development.
The operation found fraud in waste bids, irregular direction of amendments and corruption in city halls and is related to politicians from União Brasil. The investigation rapporteur is the minister.
