The minister of suspended this Thursday (5) the breaking of banking and tax secrecy of all those listed by the mixed CPI of , including Fabio Luis Lula da Silva, son of the president. The measure extends the decision issued in favor of , signed on Wednesday (4).
According to the minister, if the CPI understands this to be the case, it can deliberate again on the issue in relation to all of them. Furthermore, the rapporteur states that the measure does not affect investigations conducted by the Federal Police.
Dino’s decision occurred at a time when Lulinha’s bank details were already circulating publicly. The defense presented a petition to the minister about possible leaks of information. The same was done to the PF and the CPI.
According to its data, it generated R$19.5 million in four years. The information was and confirmed by Sheet.
“The leak constitutes a serious crime, which is being immediately reported to all competent authorities. We will spare no effort to investigate and punish those responsible,” said his defense.
With the decision given at the beginning of the night, Dino considered all the petitions that requested an extension of the understanding given in the businesswoman’s request to be affected.
“Obviously, I clarify that yesterday’s decision and this decision have no relationship and do not invalidate breaches of confidentiality carried out in the Federal Police investigation, under the supervision of the STF, in specific procedures”, said the rapporteur.
The commission approved 87 applications on February 26. The defenses questioned the form defined for the vote, carried out as a block.
In this Wednesday’s injunction, Dino said that “the wholesale removal of constitutional rights is not appropriate.”
As shown by Sheetinitially, the assessment among lawyers was that the minister’s decision, as he understood that there was illegality in the breach of confidentiality of one involved due to the way in which the CPI session took place, all requests should have been suspended at the same time.
After the rapporteur’s office released information that the decision was specific to the businesswoman, the lawyers began to produce and file extension requests for their respective clients.
In addition to Lulinha’s defense, at least the defenses of lobbyist Márcio Alaor, economist and former CEO of Banco Master Augusto Ferreira Lima, businesswoman and president of Palmeiras Leila Pereira, and the holding company PKL One Participações, holder of , also asked Dino to bar breaches of confidentiality against them.
This Thursday, Dino stated that differentiating the situations cited by the CPI for breaches would generate legal uncertainty and “endless debates both in the administrative field (at the Central Bank and the Federal Revenue Service) and in the judiciary”.
“As there was mistakenly a ‘global’ vote at a single moment in the Session on February 26, 2026, it is impossible — even in view of the logical principle of non-contradiction — for the aforementioned act to be null and void for some and valid for others,” he said.
PRESIDENT OF THE INSS CPI CRITICIZES DINO
The president of the INSS CPI, Carlos Viana (Podemos-MG), said, in a statement, that he received Dino’s decision with “deep concern” and “indignation”. The parliamentarian stated that the episode “directly touches the delicate institutional balance between the Powers of the Republic”.
According to Viana, “he made a legitimate decision, within his constitutional prerogatives”, but was interrupted “exactly at the moment when the investigation begins to reach structures that need to be clarified to society”.
“The decision comes after the Presidency of the National Congress itself, held by Senator Davi Alcolumbre, has formally analyzed the questions presented and concluded that the vote carried out by the CPMI fully complied with the Rules of Procedure and the Constitution of the Republic. Therefore, we are not facing a simple procedural divergence”, he said.
The senator also stated that block voting, cited by Dino to suspend the breach of secrecy, is a consolidated practice in Congress and has already been used in several “historic” CPIs.
“If the thesis now presented is taken to its ultimate consequences, we will be facing an extremely worrying institutional precedent. Because it would mean stating that countless decisions taken by CPIs throughout history could also be considered invalid. This would create a scenario of institutional insecurity capable of compromising Parliament’s own investigative power”, he declared.
