(Supreme Federal Court), generates impasse on possible restrictions on services in Brazil based on foreign law and may culminate in court.
The magistrate became a target, on Wednesday (30), which authorizes the US government to prevent foreigners from entering the country and imposing sanctions against individuals involved in or serious violations of.
Lawyers and law teachers consulted by the newspaper agree that punishments reach goods, possessions and transactions, but differ on the effects of services in Brazil, depending on the degree of connection with the foreign country.
For Evandro Carvalho, Professor of International Law at FGV (Getúlio Vargas Foundation) and UFF (Fluminense Federal University), the possibility of the effects of sanctions to reach the operations carried out in Brazil is real and this is precisely the objective.
The opinion is corroborated by Camila Villard Duran, an associate professor of law at Essca School of Management (France). She says the magnitsky law aims at the production of effects in foreign territory, despite being a unilateral measure.
“Although it is an American national law and part of US national law, it goes beyond the American jurisdiction due to the economic and monetary power of the United States,” says the researcher.
according to American customs records, and his visa won for years without attempted renewal. The minister has told interlocutors who have no goods or investments in the country.
However, there is no definition of the extent of sanctions, says Professor Rabih Nasser, from FGV Law SP. The main question lies on transactions in Brazil with Brazilian companies or with branches and controlled from US companies.
The law could even reach the minister’s platforms and networks, if it is interpreted that the ban extends to the provision of any service. In this reading, the simple maintenance of an account could configure a relationship subject to the restrictions of the sanction.
According to Nasser, by caution, an entity could restrict service in Brazil. “I will not say that this is always illegal. If you have a plausible justification, a company is not required to treat with a person. It is a discussion that can exist.”
In the opinion of, professor at USP Law School, on the other hand, the suspension of services in Brazil would be illegal and unconstitutional within Brazilian law and could make room for contestation in court.
“It would be a very clear violation of the principle of isonomy,” he says, “would be discriminatory.” “Brazilian law needs to come and say, ‘Either you provide this service, or you’ll be fined, or you’ll have to leave here,'” says the teacher.
There is no news that a service or product was denied to the minister due to the sanction imposed by the US government. Asked, he said that, so far, he had no news on the matter.
Nevertheless, the consensus among experts is that eventual judicialization should come from Moraes, as an individual, if he faces a negative, and not through the action of the (Attorney General of the Union) or.
Companies, in turn, are faced with a dilemma: on the one hand, they may be subject to the punishments of the magnitsky law in the United States; On the other hand, because they operate under Brazilian law, they risk being processed if they deny the provision of the service.
FMU’s academic lawyer and vice-president, Manuel Nabais da Furriela, he thinks that US standards to combat corruption and human rights violations, such as magnitsky law, provide for third parties, but precedents indicate limits.
Furriela states that punishments tend to be restricted to people who have goods in the US in conjunction with Moraes or companies directly with the minister. Therefore, it evaluates as low the chances of sanctions to Brazilian companies.
“It is possible, but unlikely, that a Brazilian bank with some kind of activity in the US of which Moraes is an account holder suffers legal retaliation for not suspending the provision of services to the minister in Brazil,” he says.
