The signing of the confidentiality agreement marks the beginning of negotiations for a possible award-winning collaboration agreement with former banker Daniel Vorcaro. According to Gustavo Sampaio, professor of constitutional law at Universidade Federal Fluminense, this case presents peculiarities in relation to other plea agreements.
In an interview with Now CNNSampaio explained that the crucial point of this case is that Vorcaro is considered, by investigations, to be the leader of the criminal organization. Normally, this would make it difficult to obtain benefits in an award-winning collaboration, since the objective of this type of agreement is for members to nominate people hierarchically superior to them.
However, Sampaio highlights a particularity: “We know that major public figures, members of the three constituted powers of the Republic, may be involved.”
Sampaio explained that after the , conversations began between Vorcaro’s defense, the Federal Police and the Public Ministry to reach the final agreement. “Once this confidentiality agreement has been signed, Vorcaro’s lawyers, the Federal Police and the Public Prosecutor’s Office open their conversations to reach the final adjustment of what the collaboration agreement will be”, he explained.
Collaboration with two bodies simultaneously
Another relevant aspect is the (Federal Police) and the MP (Public Ministry) in the agreement, something unusual, since normally collaborations are signed with just one of these bodies. For the expert, this union can avoid “some litigation, avoid some noise, avoid any manifestation from the Public Prosecutor’s Office that is not in accordance with what has been signed by the Federal Police”.
Sampaio also addressed the need for: “The award-winning collaboration either reveals everything or it is better that it is not done.” According to him, a partial revelation could lead to the concealment of the truth, contradicting the objective of the agreement.
The professor emphasized that, if Vorcaro presents vigorous evidence about the involvement of public figures, he could obtain benefits, even though he is considered leader of the criminal organization. “If he presents the path of evidence, because the plea bargain is not evidence in itself, it is a path to the production of evidence, and if this evidence is vigorous, then he will be able to obtain benefits”, he concluded.
