Judge Carlos Henrique Abrão, who changed official acts, reacted with yet another attempt at intimidation when he read in this column the (Disciplinary Administrative Process) at the CNJ (National Council of Justice), in which he is accused of offending and intimidating people with whom he had a business relationship.
“I am forwarding all your writings to Alexandre de Moraes, our student, so that he can be included in the fake investigation”, he stated.
Abrão says that advisors Luis Felipe Salomão and Mauro Campbell “acted with deliberate intent”. The first “carried out an absurd ex officio review” and the second, “closed the investigation and, for no reason, reopened it”.
In the PAD on the alteration of official acts, defense appeals are being judged. The accusation of intimidating people is in the phase of presenting defense reasons and evidence.
The case originated from documented information that the then president of the Private Law Section of the São Paulo Court of Justice, judge Dimas Rubens Fonseca, received from judges Régis Rodrigues Bonvicino and Ligia Bisogni.
Bonvicino, who died in July 2025, refused to sign the ruling amended by Abrão. He reported having been the target of pressure from Abrão.
Abrão says he has been trying to “demonstrate and prove a movement by those who don’t like the toga to get me out of my career.”
Advances and setbacks
Below are the main decisions, including victories obtained by Abram that would later be revoked.
The judge’s allegations were always published.
In 2021, there was an election of TJ-SP leaders. The Special Body had initiated (22 votes to 3) disciplinary proceedings against Abrão. Ferraz de Arruda, Aguilar Cortez and Elcio Trujillo voted to archive it.
Abrão alleged “political persecution” by the rapporteur, the then president Pinheiro Franco, to “undermine his candidacy”.
Franco saw “in theory”, “a possible disciplinary infraction”.
“Our appeal will be accepted, to prevent this whose authors will be prosecuted in the future in the civil and criminal spheres”, stated Abrão.
The judge argued that Pinheiro Franco was suspected and prevented from doing so. He claimed he was being persecuted. The then president of the CNJ, Luiz Fux, ordered the immediate archiving. He considered the path chosen by Abram inadequate.
The advisor to suspend the PAD. Abrão claimed “jurisdictional matter, not subject to disciplinary penalty”.
in a writ of mandamus filed by Abram. He cited the decision of the then magistrate Maria Thereza de Assis Moura.
Abrão had alleged “limitation of defense, due to the combination, in a single PAD, of two charges of disciplinary infraction”.
“If there was any harm, it was the magistrate himself who caused it, by requesting the measure he is now fighting and by not resisting after having his request accepted,” said Maria Thereza.
The counselor. Canuto’s injunction, taken to the plenary by Reckziegel, was revoked by 7 votes to 6. Maria Thereza’s dissenting vote prevailed.
In 2022, by 24 votes to 1, , then president of the TJ-SP, refused Abrão’s appeal. Elcio Trujillo was defeated.
Members of the 14th Chamber of Private Law declared support and solidarity with Abrão.
Abrão argued suspicion and impeachment of Richard Pae Kim, TJ-SP judge. Fux rejected it. It raised the suspicion of the rapporteur, Mauro Pereira Martins, who rejected it and questioned Abrão’s procedural good faith.
Advisers against archiving
By Mário Henrique Maia was defeated.
Abrão claimed in the records that he carried out genuinely jurisdictional acts.
The rapporteur disagreed. Martins understood that there was a trial presided over by Abrão, and that the episode that generated the PAD was later.
The rapporteur was accompanied by Salise Sanchotene, Jane Granzoto, Márcio Luiz Freitas, Richard Pae Kim, Giovanni Olsson, Sidney Madruga, Luiz Fernando Bandeira, Marcos Vinícius Jardim, Marcello Terto e Silva, Maria Thereza de Assis Moura and Luiz Philippe Vieira de Mello Filho.
In 2023, . The rapporteur, Matheus Fontes, admitted a “very clear violation” of Loman (Organic Law of the National Judiciary) and the internal regulations.
“Despite the seriousness of the facts”, Abrão’s conduct “did not cause harm to the parties or to the image of the Judiciary, with no bad faith or intention to harm anyone”.
“The act, yes, is reprehensible, subject to the penalty of censorship”, said the rapporteur, but Loman states that warning and censorship are only applicable to first instance judges.
For Fontes, changing appeals judgment strips after the announcement of the result and closing of the session “removes the allegation that the conduct was practiced in the exercise of jurisdictional activity”.
In March, when the CNJ unanimously decided to remove Abrão for 180 days, the collegiate annulled the filing of the two cases.
The rapporteur, and the seriousness of the facts.
