The minister of the (Federal Supreme Court) withdrew part of the decision handed down on March 27 to limit the supply of police, government and Parliamentary Commissions of Inquiry, and determined this Tuesday (21) that the procedures prior to his initial decision are not affected by the new rules.
On March 27, the minister asked Coaf to provide these reports, such as the existence of a formally established investigation procedure with documentary support, such as a police investigation or a PIC (criminal investigative procedure, a means used by the Public Ministry).
It was also prohibited to use it as “evidence fishing”, as the first or only investigative measure, and determined that it has thematic relevance with the object of the investigation. These rules must be followed by Coaf both to respond to requests from control bodies and judicial decisions and CPIs (Parliamentary Commissions of Inquiry), in addition to documents that the body produces spontaneously based on alerts from banks.
At the time, the minister stated that the absence of the requirements set out in his decision “takes away the constitutional legitimacy” of the use of information and financial intelligence reports (RIFs). This illegality would apply “including in relation to those already provided and added to investigations and processes” and “constitutes illegality of the evidence produced, as well as of all [as provas] directly derived from it”, “and are therefore inadmissible”.
The injunction was handed down days after that of Maridt Participações, a fund linked to the company. The CPI’s decision was annulled by the minister, also from the STF.
Moraes’ decision in March meant a broad limitation on the use of financial transaction reports prepared by Coaf and began to be used by those under investigation to request the annulment of investigations against them.
This Tuesday (21), the minister published a new decision, “clarifying” that the measure only takes effect from the moment the injunction is published on March 27, “establishing binding criteria for future action” by Coaf and the requesting authorities.
“The injunction determined in the present case has prospective effectiveness (ex nunc), not automatically applying to past acts regularly carried out before its pronouncement”, he stated, in the decision this Tuesday, April 21st holiday, and issued urgently to the courts of justice, Public Prosecutor’s Office, Public Defender’s Office and.
This clarification, states the minister in the new decision, aims at legal certainty and avoids “the production of widespread retroactive effects that could compromise investigations, processes or procedures at an advanced stage”.
Moraes also warns that the future nature of the injunction does not prevent “the concrete analysis of the legality of the evidence in each specific case” and the subsequent control of the legality and admissibility of the evidence made based on Coaf’s intelligence reports.
The injunction trial is scheduled for May 14.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
