0
Faria Lima Investment Funds Management and Managers, the country’s financial center, have resisted to open who their final beneficiaries are, even when obliged by the court.
In judicial proceedings raised by Metropoliscompanies have sent vague answers and stated that they cannot reveal funds quotes. Information is essential to unravel fraud and money laundering using mechanisms.
3 Images
Close modal.
1 of 3
Faria Lima’s “Black Black Backgrounds” managers were the target of Federal Police, IRS and MPSP operations
Image given to Metropolis
2 of 3
Founder of Polishop, João Appolinarian
Reproduction
3 of 3
Material assigned to metropolis
A survey of Metropolis It identified 177 funds, which add up for equity of R $ 55 billion, which are without audit or were considered unavoidable by independent auditors. Of these funds, 71 have as their only shareholders other funds. These are funds that are not offered to investors and provide a perfect structure for those who want to shield heritage.
Read too
In cases of armor, the scheme works as follows: the owner of the money seeks Faria Lima administrator to structure a fund in which his company is the only one invested. The investment comes from a single quota holder, who is the company’s own owner. This way, the company and its owner never have money in their current accounts. The money is in the background, which invests in the company and protects the identity of the shareholder.
When there are evidence of fraud, administrators of these private funds have made access to the names of the quota holders of the backgrounds to the fullest. Often, when a judge orders to open the black box, it is found that the investor is another fund. Since there is no legal limit to these layers, the origin of money is often not identified.
The administrators of these funds have been cited in fraud investigations over the last few years. One is Planner, who has fought in court so as not to provide data from a fund on suspicion of being used to protect the assets of businessman João Appolinário, owner of the retail network, who has been undergoing judicial recovery since 2024.
The court recognized the use of another investment fund to shield appoly and polishop heritage. This other fund, object of the most recent dispute, is in the sights of Polishop Credit Banks because, one day before the company requested the judicial recovery, he received quotas from another fund of which Appoly declared himself a shareholder of $ 64 million.
The court even sent the Planner to claim whether or not he is a quotaholder of the fund, which was denied. Then, after more pressures from the banks, the judge of the case, Paulo Furtado de Oliveira Filho, sent the judicial administrator, Ricardo Cabezon, to oversee the list of shareholders. Only he had access to this list, and at his conclusion said he found no connections with the entrepreneur.
The judge then welcomed the request for banks to have the creditors themselves access to the fund’s shareholders. The planner then rushed to say that “received with concern” the decision. He also said that she is “extremely severe to fund investors.” The background is called GAD, and is listed on the stock exchange. He has 21 quota holders, of which two are individuals.
In recent days, the Fund has obtained the decision to suspend the supply of shareholders until the judicial administrator decides whether one of the banks who have opened heavy artillery against the GAD may or may not be considered a creditor of judicial recovery.
Poishop owner, João Apelinario became famous as one of the jurors of the television program “Shark Tank”, in which entrepreneurs’ “sharks” decided to invest in or not in businesses that were offered by small entrepreneurs who went to the reality show.
In May 2024, Polishop requested judicial recovery, a lawsuit that shields the company of legal blocks and gives it help to renegotiate its debts. Currently, banks have a war against the entrepreneur involving the investment funds mechanism.
Sought by MetropolisPolishop’s defense said it does not comment on processes in progress.
Planner stated that all investment funds managed by her “have financial statements audited and published on the CVM website”. In addition, he says, “the planner adopts all the necessary steps to deliver subsidies to the auditor, so that, in the event of any point, such as abstention, appropriate measures are taken to address the point of the audited financial statement, strict compliance with legal and regulatory rules and in compliance with market best practices.”
“Planner clarifies that there is no condemnation in its detriment in the context of mentioned administrative misconduct. The process is underway, and the planner presented its technical defense before the Judiciary, proving that it has not practiced any unforeseen act. The planner reinforces that it has always acted in strict observance of current legislation and the best practices of the market,” he said.
The company says that “strictly complies with its fiduciary obligations and the duty of confidentiality established by BACEN and CVM, thus, in accordance with current legislation, the delivery of the list of shareholders is performed by judicial determination or by requesting regulatory bodies.”
“In addition, the Planner reports that there is no request for information that has been pending response, so that it reinforces its commitment to collaborate with regulatory bodies and the judiciary, always acting in strict compliance with the current legal and regulatory rules,” he concludes.
