Former governors failed to attend previous invitations; CPI wants to clarify the BRB case and the advancement of crime in RJ
The Organized Crime CPI approved this Tuesday (March 31, 2026) a request to summon the former governors of (PL) and Federal District(MDB), to provide mandatory testimony to the collegiate.
The 2 had previously been invited, but did not attend meetings held in December and February. With the approval of the requests, they become summoned, which obliges them to testify.
The CPI rapporteur, the senator (MDB-SE), states that Ibaneis should clarify negotiations involving the BRB (Banco Regional de Brasília) in the attempt to acquire the . The institution by Central Bank of Brazil in 2025, following suspicions of fraud in the financial system.
In the case of Castro, the rapporteur maintains that the former governor will be able to detail the scenario of the new Rio de Janeirodescribed in the application as an environment in which some of the most sophisticated dynamics of organized crime in the country developed.
The Central Bank blocked the operation between BRB and Banco Master and forwarded information to Federal Police and to Public Ministry. The summons of the former director of the monetary authority was also approved Renato Dias de Brito Gomesresponsible for the technical area that supported the decision, to testify as a witness.
With the approval of the requests, the CPI presidency will be responsible for defining the dates for the testimonies. Those summoned should be formally notified in the coming days.
Despite the obligation, it is common for those summoned to resort to the Supremo Tribunal Federal to try to suspend testimonies or ensure the right to silence.
Breach of confidentiality
The commission began to analyze requests for breach of confidentiality separately, due to a decision by the STF. The understanding was established by the minister.
The president of the CPI, the senator (PT-ES), criticized the measure and stated that the new requirements for access to data from Coaf (Financial Activities Control Council) could compromise the progress of investigations.
According to him, the decision creates an administrative filter not provided for by law and could lead to the review of information sharing already approved by the commission.
