The plenary of the (Federal Supreme Court) formed a majority to allow slush fund cases to be punished twice: in the Electoral Court and in the common court. The understanding makes the punishment for crime in the middle of an election year more stringent.
The Supreme Court discusses thesis in the virtual plenary. The trial ends today and, so far, nine of the ten ministers have already voted to endorse the rapporteur’s understanding, that the same slush fund crime can be punished both in the Electoral Court, and in actions of improbity, in the common court.
In practice, this understanding allows for stricter punishment for those who commit the crime.
The crime known as slush fund is provided for in the Electoral Code. It consists of not declaring the amount that a candidate or service provider received for a specific electoral campaign.
In the Electoral Court, the crime can lead to five years in prison and a fine. In cases of misconduct, the punishment is civil, involving penalties such as loss of political rights, prohibition of contracting with public authorities and fines. In practice, a politician who commits a crime will be subject to all these punishments, if convicted.
Moraes also understood that, if the Electoral Court does not prove that a crime occurred, the decision will automatically impact the administrative sphere. This was the only point of reservation in the judgment, made by the minister. For the dean of the STF, discussion about the impact of the Electoral Court’s decision in a process that is being processed in another branch of Justice is being discussed in another action in the STF that will end up overlapping with this thesis defined by Moraes so far.
Despite the reservation, Gilmar followed Moraes in his vote.
