The Third Criminal Panel of the TJDFT (Court of Justice of the Federal District and Territories) accepted, this Thursday (4), an appeal from Gaeco (Special Action Group to Combat Organized Crime), linked to the MPDFT (Public Ministry of the Federal District and Territories), and decided to make attacker Bruno Henrique, from Flamengo, a defendant for embezzlement. The decision was unanimous.
In July, the Federal District Court had already made the athlete a defendant for sports fraud. At the time, judge Fernando Brandini Barbagalo, of the first instance, rejected including the accusation of embezzlement, on the grounds that the complaint did not present sufficient elements. He also highlighted that, as the bookmakers did not formally manifest themselves in the case, there would be no victim — and, without a victim, there would be no fraud.
For the judges, however, the existence of investigations conducted by institutions such as the CBF (Brazilian Football Confederation) and Ibia (International Betting Integrity Association) is enough to support the continuation of the criminal action.
Bruno Henrique is accused of informing his brother, Wander Nunes Junior, that he would receive a yellow card in the game between Flamengo and Santos, for the 2023 Brazilian Championship. Wander, according to the complaint, bet on the card occurring and passed the information on to other people.
In the sporting sphere, the athlete was only fined by the STJD (Superior Court of Sports Justice) and continued acting normally, participating in the final stretch of this year’s Brazilian Championship and the Copa Libertadores decision.
In a statement, the player’s defense criticized the new decision.
“The defense of athlete Bruno Henrique received with indignation the news of the trial that accepted the MPDFT’s appeal to open criminal proceedings regarding an alleged crime of embezzlement, a fact that contradicts the reasoned decision of the judge of first instance. With confidence in the Judiciary, an appeal will be presented to the competent bodies, which will demonstrate, once again, the clear error of the complaint.”
The appeal will be taken to the STJ (Superior Court of Justice).
