The Advocacy General of the Union (AGU) allowed the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (Ibama) to collect at least BRL 29.1 billion in environmental fines that had been barred during the government of Jair Bolsonaro (PL).
The permission came with the approval of two opinions by the attorney general of the Union, Jorge Messias, which overturn the orders of the former president of Ibama, Eduardo Fortunato Bim. He had decided for the prescription of fines in cases where offenders were notified by means of public notice for the presentation of final allegations.
:: State rearticulation is a condition to curb deforestation, says head of Ibama inspection ::
MPF wants to participate in jewelry investigation
The Federal Public Ministry (MPF) asked the Federal Police (PF) to join efforts in investigating the case of jewelry that was illegally brought from Saudi Arabia to Brazil by the Bolsonaro government. If the request is accepted by the PF, the Attorney General’s Office in Guarulhos (SP) will join the team of investigators.
Today, the investigation runs in secrecy at the Specialized Police Station for Combating Finance Crimes of the Federal Police superintendence in São Paulo.
As reported by the newspaper The State of S. Paulothe Bolsonaro government tried to bring to Brazil a set of necklace, ring, watch and a pair of diamond earrings valued at R$ 16.5 million, in October 2021.
:: The link between jewelry and the Petrobras refinery ::
The items, which would be a gift from Saudi Arabia to Bolsonaro and the then first lady Michelle Bolsonaro, were seized by the inspectors at São Paulo International Airport, in Guarulhos.
The jewels were brought by an advisor to the then Minister of Mines and Energy, Bento Albuquerque. Upon learning of the seizure, Albuquerque attempted to negotiate the release of the items using the position of his position. The attempt, however, did not work and the jewels continued to be seized, since any asset whose value exceeds US$ 1,000 must be declared to the Federal Revenue Service.
Gilmar Mendes overturns three Lava Jato lawsuits against Arthur Lira
The Minister of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) Gilmar Mendes definitively suspended three cases against the President of the Chamber of Deputies, Arthur Lira (PP-AL), for administrative impropriety. The magistrate argued that the investigations were based on a complaint that has already been rejected by the STF.
Mendes argued that the rejection of the complaint recognized the lack of evidence and that the defense “presented arguments that point to the non-participation of the defendants in illicit acts, expressly recognizing the fragility of the narrative constructed to the detriment of the claimants”.
“Therefore, the relentless jurisprudence of the Court applies in the sense that the same factual narrative that gave rise to a judgment of negative certainty in the criminal sphere cannot provoke a new process under the sanctioning administrative law. and I determine the blocking of actions of administrative improbity exclusively in relation to the claimants, with the consequent lifting of all patrimonial constraints carried out in their disfavor”, concluded the minister.
Alberto Youssef is released after clash between judges
Money changer Alberto Youssef, one of the pivotal whistleblowers in Operation Lava Jato, received authorization to leave prison late this Tuesday (21) afternoon. The decision was made by Judge Marcelo Malucelli, from the Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region (TRF-4).
Earlier, Malucelli had already issued a release order. But Eduardo Appio, from the 13th Criminal Court of Curitiba, published a second arrest warrant against Youssef.
:: Jurists denounce persecution of the new judge responsible for Lava Jato ::
In the first arrest warrant, Appio argued that the denunciation signed by the money changer in 2014 did not cover the possible tax crimes pointed out by the Federal Revenue. Malucelli, then, issued the release, arguing that preventive detention can only “be decreed by the judge, at the request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the plaintiff or the assistant, or by representation of the police authority”.
In the most recent decision, Malucelli argues that “there is no factual change or new document attached that justifies the change of understanding recorded in the decision he had given at 3 pm”.
“As it appears, there was only the renewal of the pre-trial detention decree previously issued, with different grounds. directly faced in these records”, says Malucelli.
Editing: Nicolau Soares
