To continue investigating former PT leader in the Chamber of Deputies, Cândido Vaccarezza, and other accused individuals implicated in alleged irregularities at Petrobras, prosecutors from the Paraná “Lava Jato” interpreted a decision on sharing evidence as a jurisdictional decline by the Federal Supreme Court (STF).
This maneuver was carried out in 2019, against the STF’s wishes, which at the time was still deciding whether the information provided by whistleblowers Jorge Luz and Bruno Luz should be investigated under the framework of Pet 7.969.
According to the whistleblowers, a corruption scheme had been set up at Petrobras to influence the international bidding process for the hiring of pipeline-laying vessels in favor of the company Sapura. The beneficiaries were the then federal deputies Cândido Vaccarezza (PT-SP at the time) and Vander Loubet (PT-MS).
At the request of the Federal Public Ministry (MPF), Minister Luiz Edson Fachin, the rapporteur for Pet 7.969, ordered the referral of these details to the 13th Federal Court of Curitiba in April 2019. The objective was to append the information to an existing police investigation into other Petrobras misappropriations involving Jorge Luz.
Instead, prosecutors from “Lava Jato” initiated an independent criminal investigative procedure (PIC) in July 2019. To do so, they excluded the only individual under special jurisdiction at that time, Vander Loubet.
In August, the group of prosecutors justified this measure by claiming it was based on a “jurisdictional decline” made by the STF in Pet 7.969.
At the STF, Pet 7.969 gave rise to Inquiry 4.798, launched in August 2019 to investigate the actions of all involved, including those without special jurisdiction. Without splitting the investigations, the Paraná “Lava Jato” would not have been able to use the PIC to investigate the same individuals for the same events under the STF’s shadow.
In November 2020, Minister Fachin agreed with the MPF’s request and ordered the closure of Inquiry 4.798 due to a lack of evidence supporting the claims. Meanwhile, the investigation continued in Paraná through the irregularly opened PIC.
STJ Halts PIC
Maurício da Silva Carvalho is among those accused by “Lava Jato” as an operator in the Petrobras scheme. He had been the target of the inquiry closed by the STF and continued to be investigated by “Lava Jato” through the PIC initiated by the MPF in Paraná.
Carvalho filed a Habeas Corpus in the 4th Regional Federal Court requesting the termination of the investigation. The court denied the request, reasoning that any violation of Minister Fachin’s decision could only be assessed by the STF.
Carvalho appealed to the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), which, in a ruling on February 15, granted the order to terminate the PIC opened by “Lava Jato” and annul all investigative acts or judicial actions derived from requests within the procedure.
The decision was made by a majority, with the presiding judge, Jesulino Rissato, dissenting. The winning vote was by Minister João Otávio de Noronha, joined by Ministers Ribeiro Dantas, Reynaldo Soares da Fonseca, and Joel Ilan Paciornik.
Punitive Zeal
According to Noronha, when the PIC was initiated, the “Lava Jato” prosecutors decided to split the facts presented in the plea bargain as if they were authorized to do so. The minister described the action as “hasty” and “absurd.”
He emphasized that, to simulate a split that could only be carried out by Minister Fachin, the prosecutors omitted the name of the only person with special jurisdiction, federal deputy Vander Loubet, and defined the scope of the PIC as dealing with the payment of bribes to lower-level employees.
“What jurisdictional decline would this be, which occurred before Minister Fachin even reviewed the facts presented by the whistleblowers and ordered the opening of an inquiry against all those involved?” he questioned in his opinion.
“The complexity of the facts investigated in ‘Lava Jato,’ which had many ramifications, does not justify the uncontrolled action of the prosecuting body in its zealous pursuit of convictions,” Noronha criticized.
He also pointed out that the lack of a jurisdictional decline decision from the STF was used by the TRF-4 to harm the Habeas Corpus petitioner. The regional court concluded that, because the documents are confidential in the STF, they couldn’t know whether the inquiry’s rapporteur had actually declined jurisdiction.
“Secrecy of parent processes must never deny the investigated party the right to know the decision that promotes partial jurisdictional decline; they cannot be used as shields to prevent the exercise of fundamental rights. And, worse, they should never be opposed to the Judiciary itself,” the minister emphasized.
Noronha concluded that if a jurisdictional decline had truly occurred, Minister Fachin’s decision would have sent the case concerning all individuals without special jurisdiction in the STF to the first instance, which did not happen.
He concluded that the initiation of the PIC before the inquiry was even opened in the STF for the same facts constituted a clear abuse of authority, violating the constitutional guarantee that the investigated party should be subject to procedures in the competent court.
The accused were defended by the law firms Bidino & Tórtima, Garcia de Souza, and Brito Chaves. Lawyer Fernanda Tórtima celebrated the STJ’s decision and questioned the MPF’s methods.
The MPF trick was applied in at least one more case: that of businessman Wilson Quintella, former president of the Estre Ambiental group.
Read the full article on ConJur.