The leak of messages extracted from the cell phone of Daniel Vorcaro, owner of Banco Master, became the subject of an investigation opened by the STF (Supreme Federal Court) last Friday (6). The disclosure of these dialogues, in addition to unduly exposing the personal lives of third parties, can compromise the progress of investigations and generate procedural nullities, according to an analysis by Matheus Teixeira, in CNN 360°.
Teixeira highlighted that Minister Gilmar Mendes’ statement on the case, although considered late by some, is important given the seriousness of the situation. “The woman’s life was exposed, no one deserves it, she is not necessarily involved in the crimes”, observed Teixeira, referring to a person whose privacy was invaded with the disclosure of content.
This was determined by Minister André Mendonça, who accepted the request for investigation. In this case, but as Teixeira highlighted: “the damage has already been done, it has already been leaked, her life has already been exposed”. Those responsible can be held accountable, but public exposure has already occurred and is irreversible.
Risk of exam cancellation
A crucial aspect highlighted in the analysis is this leak. Lawyers tend to cling to procedural nullities, and a leak considered illegal can lead to the annulment of evidence. “It could prove that a public agent acted incorrectly during the investigations and this could lead to the annulment of the evidence”, explained Teixeira.
The analyst compared the situation to what happened in the Lava Jato operation, when evidence against several politicians ended up being annulled because investigators did not follow due legal process. In the case of Banco Master, lawyers would already be thoroughly examining the situation to identify possible nullities that could benefit those involved in the future.
The seriousness of the case is twofold: in addition to the undue exposure of a person who did not need to be exposed, the leak could generate future nullities that would prevent the process from reaching an adequate conclusion, compromising the search for justice.
