Special Court receives complaint against Margareth Matos de Carvalho, from MPT, and accountant; case involves funds according to Itaú allocated to the Instituto Lixo e Cidadania
The STJ (Superior Court of Justice) made the regional Labor attorney Margareth Matos de Carvalho a defendant this Wednesday (June 17, 2026) on charges of misappropriation of R$7.1 million.
The ministers received a complaint from Margareth and accountant Regiane Costa de Oliveira Paredes. The two are accused of embezzling resources that were supposed to finance social projects.
The money is the result of an agreement signed by the (Public Ministry of Labor) with Banco Itaú. In legal agreements, the amounts paid by companies can be directed to projects, associations or funds with social purposes.
According to the complaint, R$6.9 million was allocated to . The case also involves R$226,900 that was initially reserved for another association, but was later reverted to the same institute.
According to the complaint, Margareth had used her position as regional labor attorney to influence the choice of the association that would receive the amounts. The MPF says that she acted decisively to direct the money to the institute and would later have received direct and indirect benefits.
The rapporteur, minister, voted to accept the complaint. The other ministers followed the vote without dissent. In her vote, Noronha cited as an example the receipt of R$28,000 by Margareth to justify purchasing a vehicle and covering travel costs.
ROLE OF THE ACCOUNTANT
The second defendant is accountant Regiane Costa de Oliveira Paredes. According to the MPF, it did not only act as a provider of accounting services. The complaint states that Regiane exercised the financial administration of the institute.
The rapporteur cited evidence that she had control over the entity’s financial management, bank accounts, digital certificates and passwords.
Noronha also mentioned testimonies from members of the institute’s formal board of directors. According to the accusation, these directors had only nominal action, while Regiane “I would command the financial part”.
The accounting company linked to Regiane operated at the same address as the institute. According to the vote, the legal entity received R$840 thousand in bills and R$361.4 thousand in transfers. For the MPF, the values would be disproportionate and without adequate proof of service provided.
WHAT THE DEFENSES SAY
Margareth’s defense tried to block the opening of the criminal case, stating that the procedure was more than 16,000 pages long and brought together documents from different investigations and administrative processes.
He also claimed that the complaint did not clearly indicate what the prosecutor’s criminal conduct had been, and said that the MPF attributed responsibility to Margareth for all the facts, without demonstrating a specific act of deviation.
Another argument was that part of the questioned amounts was allocated to social projects, such as hospitals, training of collectors and actions linked to guardianship councils.
Regiane’s defense also denied the accusation. She said that she was just the institute’s accountant and that acts such as organizing documents, issuing notes, reporting and fulfilling tax obligations do not mean control over public money.
According to the defense, the complaint did not indicate which account Regiane operated, which payment she authorized, which transfer she ordered or which amount she had unduly received in her personal assets.
NEXT STEPS
With the decision, Margareth and Regiane begin to formally respond to criminal action at the STJ.
The next stage will be criminal investigation. At this stage, defenses will be able to present evidence, request investigations, indicate witnesses and question the elements presented by the MPF.
At the end of the process, the Special Court will decide whether to convict or acquit the two.
