Supreme Court’s ruling could lead to review of Car Wash task force
Public prosecutors and lawyers expressed surprise at the decision of Federal Supreme Court (STF) Justice Dias Toffoli, who nullified all evidence gathered through Odebrecht’s leniency agreement in the Car Wash antigraft operation. According to Mr. Toffoli, who considered the evidence "useless," the invalidation applies to all administrative or legal proceedings arising from this evidence.Ubiratan Cazetta, head of the National Association of Public Prosecutors (ANPR), told Valor that he is awaiting details from the Supreme Court or Mr. Toffoli on the ruling. In his view, it creates legal uncertainty and could harm the Brazilian state."The extent of the decision must be clear so that its reach is no farther than it should. You can’t put all the [Car Wash] work under suspicion," he said.Mr. Cazetta specifically cites excerpts from Mr. Toffoli’s ruling that say Car Wash practiced "true psychological torture, a 21st-century strappado, to obtain ‘evidence’ against innocent people" and the country needed a serious debate about the probe, which caused a hecatomb in the political world. "The operation was not completely wonderful, as there were flaws and mistakes. Nor was it a complete set-up either," he said. "What are we going to do with the crimes that were confessed and the billions of reais that were recovered?"Since 2014, when the first phase of Car Wash was launched, federal prosecutors have approved 49 leniency agreements and 159 plea bargains, providing for the return of more than R$25 billion to public coffers. According to the MPF (Federal Prosecution Service), 19 leniency agreements and 130 plea bargains were signed by the now-extinct Paraná task force. The MPF does not indicate how much money was effectively recovered, as leniency agreements provide that companies can make payments over more than two decades.In the case of Odebrecht, in addition to the leniency agreement signed by the company’s representatives, 77 executives formalized plea bargain agreements, which apply to individuals. "These people were recorded, heard by the federal prosecutors, and then gave separate testimonies to the Supreme Court, which approved all the agreements. The word ‘torture’ cannot be used in this case," said Mr. Cazetta.According to constitutionalist lawyer Vera Chemim, the decision leads to "serious legal uncertainty." She said the decision - based on the hacked messages at the so-called Vaza-Jato leaks that proved illegal acts by public officials...
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃO