The news about bringing up a theme that should be treated as a priority of governance. It is the use of regulated structures of the capital market for excuses, including money laundering. The investigation showed how legitimate vehicles can be distorted when inspection does not follow financial creativity.
In this context, Valor Econômico published a relevant report on the so -called shelf funds, also known as rent belly. These are structures in which, even with a single shareholder, the final beneficiary is not identified. Created as investment instruments, these funds would have been used in suspicious operations, which lit a warning between regulators and government. Once again, it is evident that regulatory breaches are not technical details, but points of fragility that make room for the capture of the financial system.
Brazilian experience shows that actors often change, but breaches remain. After each episode, it was found that it was evident that a particular company, fund or operation would bring problems. Before collapse, however, signs of risk are often relativized or treated with indifference. This phenomenon of compliance compromises the culture of governance and makes room for the repetition of the same errors.
Continues after advertising
This is not the first time we have faced similar dilemmas. The Brazilian market knows the risk of innovations without transparency. In the early 2000s, the FIDCs was wear and tear when the fragility in the verification of lakes generated losses and disputes that were only circumvented after strong CVM performance. Pension funds also went into crisis after investments in poorly structured vehicles, later investigated by the Funds CPI and Operation Greenfield. These are different cases, but all have the same common denominator, which is the absence of proper governance and effective supervision.
Brazil has also witnessed on a larger scale what the lack of controls can cause. Operation Lava Jato revealed how offshores and facade companies were used to mask financial operations and compromised trust in the business environment. The difference now is that the problem is within the regulated market, in funds that should give security to the investor and ended up associated with gray and suspicious areas.
The effort to close these gaps represents much more than a response to a specific case. It is a credibility test. Each time regulation takes time to adapt, the cost appears in the form of distrust. And confidence is the most valuable asset in the capital market.
Continues after advertising
The lesson that remains is that transparency on final beneficiaries should not be confused with bureaucracy. It is a protection mechanism for the investor, loyal competition and the reputation of the financial system. Shelf funds may even disappear with new rules, but other instruments will emerge. What cannot disappear is permanent surveillance and the memory of the mistakes already made.
