Decision sets a precedent on lawyer whistleblowing and confidentiality of the relationship between clients and defenders
The 5th panel of the (Superior Court of Justice) unanimously annulled an excerpt from the plea bargain agreement for the operation, one of the largest investigations against money laundering and tax evasion in Brazil. The decision, taken on Tuesday (October 7, 2025) in plenary, considered that the statement made by lawyers violates the confidentiality of the relationship between client and defenders.
With the decision, the Court annulled the plea bargain signed by lawyers Luiz Carlos Claro and Gabriel Claro, father and son, in which they pointed to alleged crimes of tax evasion by their clients and a bribery scheme for employees at Ceitec (Centro Nacional de Tecnologia Eletrônica Avançada SA), a state-owned technology company linked to the federal government.
[shotcode-newsletter]
At the time of the agreement, the whistleblowers told the PF (Federal Police) that the law firm and companies controlled by the family assisted the companies under investigation in operating and operating Silício in money laundering schemes. According to the investigation, the group acted as a criminal association and practiced corruption, currency evasion and ideological falsehood.
LAWYER SECRECY
With the new decision, the ministers of the 5th Panel – specialized in criminal law – followed the rapporteur Reynaldo Soares da Fonseca, as they understood that the benefits of whistleblowing cannot be granted based on the violation of legal confidentiality.
In July, the rapporteur annulled the evidence of the accusation in a monocratic decision. For the minister, “the understanding must prevail regarding the impossibility of the lawyer denouncing his client, under penalty of weakening the right of defense”.
The group’s decision had favorable votes from ministers Ribeiro Dantas, Joel Ilan Paciornik and Marluce Caldas, who accepted the defense arguments of one of the clients named in the complaint.
The MPF (Federal Public Ministry) indicated that it intends to appeal the decision. Both the MPF and the whistleblowers claim that the collaboration refers to services that were not related to legitimate legal activity, but to illegal operations.
