STF minister followed the position of the rapporteur, Dias Toffoli, and Gilmar Mendes, while André Mendonça and Edson Fachin diverged in the second class; final score was 3 to 2 in favor of Palocci
Supreme Court Minister Kassio Nunes Marques followed rapporteur Dias Toffoli and helped form the majority who decided to nullify all evidence and proceedings against the former minister in Operation Lava Jato. The final score was 3 to 2 in favor of Palocci. In addition to Toffoli and Nunes Marques, Gilmar Mendes had also been positioned by the filing of the case. Already André Mendonça and Edson Fachin followed the opposite way.
The trial occurred in the Second Class, composed of the five ministers cited. In April, Nunes Marques had requested a view to have more analysis time. Your vote was registered in virtual session. Defendant I confess, Antonio Palocci closed awarded collaboration agreement, revealing bribes of R $ 333.59 million allegedly raised and passed on by companies, banks and industries to politicians and different parties during the governments of Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff (2002-2014). Palocci was arrested in 2016.
The decision, however, does not interfere with the award -winning collaboration agreement, which is still valid. The former minister paid a fine of $ 37.5 million in exchange for the benefits of the denunciation. As a rapporteur, Toffoli opened the votes in favor of the annulment, justifying that, like Lula, Palocci would have been the victim of the “collusion” between former Judge Sergio Moro and the Lava Jato task force prosecutors in Curitiba.
Lula was the first defendant of Lava Jato to have cases and convictions annulled by the Supreme Court, establishing a precedent that has already benefited other entrepreneurs and politicians. To substantiate the “absolute nullity of all acts performed” against Palocci during Lava Jato investigations and actions, including the pre-procedural phase, Toffoli argued that “the grounds that led to the recognition of the collusion (…) transcend to the other criminal persecution that suffered before the same judicial body and in the same context as the Operation Lava the Jet”.
Fachin, who diverged, maintained that the Supreme Court could not extend to Palocci the decision that benefited Lula, as the contexts would be different. “On the pretext of extension requests, it cannot examine broad and generic requests on the most varied investigations arising from Operation Lava Jato, although under the cloak of granting habeas corpus of office, under penalty of violation of the natural judge and the rules of competence,” he said.
The minister also stressed that the dialogues obtained in Operation Spoofing “are serious, deserve to be cleared and the judiciary should give an answer about them”, but argued that they should not be used as evidence for not having undergone official expertise. André Mendonça followed the same line, stating that Palocci’s request should be analyzed “in appropriate instances and roads.”
The Attorney General’s Office (PGR) filed an appeal to try to restore criminal actions against the former minister. In appealing, Attorney General Paulo Gonet argued that the evidence against Palocci were obtained “from multiple sources and in different instances” and that his arguments lack “probative support, configuring mere nonconformity with the regular continuation of criminal prosecution”. “Antonio Palocci Filho’s binding to Operation Lava Jato appears to have occurred legitimately, sustained in concrete elements that emerged in the natural course of findings and with stay in subsisting tests until the current moment,” he said.
*Report produced with the aid of AI
Posted by Carol Santos
