Notified former director general Silvinei Vasques, on December 26, 2025 in Papuda, to present a defense in the investigation into possible irregularities in the purchase of armored vehicles. The investigation, conducted through a , identified possible flaws in 2021 contracts and also evidence of civil servants’ liability for accepting equipment outside of technical specifications.
The PRF’s preliminary report indicates that the vehicles delivered by the company Combat Armor Defense do Brasil presented several non-conformities in relation to the notice.
Among the problems identified are structural failures, lack of mandatory items and technical inadequacies that would compromise the operation of the vehicles.
Tests carried out with support from the Army showed, for example:
- absence of differential lock;
- problems in the braking system;
- shielding failures;
- inability to overcome simple obstacles.
Read the document (PDF — 2 MB)
LOSS COULD EXCEED 14 MILLION
The administrative investigation has already resulted in a fine of R$2.8 million to the contracted company and the order that R$14.1 million be returned to the public coffers, due to losses caused. According to the PRF, the amounts are linked to the delivery of equipment that did not meet the technical requirements required in the contract.
According to the document, Silvinei Vasques was the expense organizer and responsible for approving the bid at the time of the contracts. Therefore, he was formally notified to present a defense regarding his role in the process. The response must be sent to the office of minister Alexandre de Moraes, responsible for the criminal execution of the former director.
PAPUDA AND STF
The PRF requested the Supreme Court to formally send the notification to the Papuda Penitentiary Complex, where Vasques is imprisoned, and to collect proof of receipt. The deadline for manifestation is 20 days from delivery of the document.
The investigation refers to contracts signed in 2021 to supply armored vehicles for PRF operations. The investigation also points to a possible failure in inspection and receipt of equipment by public servants, which could increase liability in the case.
