Post by account_disabled on Mar 11, 2024 6:14:24 GMT
Electronic recording between two co-defendants, made by one of them without the other's knowledge, can be used as evidence when other elements serve as the basis for the investigation. The decision was made by the th Panel of the Superior Court of Justice, which denied the Habeas Corpus request for the former director of technology at Banco de Brasília, accused of being part of a criminal scheme that embezzled money from the institution.
Minister Laurita Vaz, rapporteur of the case, said that “the eventual nullity of the environmental recording of the conversation made by one of the co-defendants, without the knowledge of the other, would not have the power to result in the ineptitude (lack of just cause) of the complaint, a since the initial is not exclusively based on this evidence, but on several other indicative elements, such as documentary Austria Phone Numbers List evidence relating to the individuals or legal entities involved in the investigations, as well as recordings of telephone interceptions obtained through judicial authorization, which disrupted the money embezzlement scheme ”.
Regarding the defense arguments, she claimed that “it does not offend the principle of natural justice, the summoning of first degree judges to, in cases of possible removal of the main judge, form the judging body of the respective Court, as long as the legal guidelines are observed. ”.
The rapporteur clarified that possible irregularities in the investigation phase of the case do not result in the annulment of the accusatory statement, because it is during the criminal action that the Court will be able to verify the existence or not of the alleged defects, as well as their scope. “In this context, preventing the State, in advance, from exercising its jurisdictional function, prohibiting it from even collecting evidence to verify the truth of the facts, constitutes a hypothesis of extreme exceptionality, not evidenced in kind, making It is therefore premature to suspend the criminal action brought against the patient”, he concluded.
The Public Prosecutor's Office charged the accused with the crimes of money laundering and concealment of assets, rights and values. To support the request, he used, in addition to other evidence, such as documents relating to the individuals and legal entities involved in the investigation, an environmental recording of the conversation via a notebook made between the accused (who did not know he was being recorded) and another ran.
Alleging a lack of just cause for opening the criminal action, as it was based on this recording, the accused appealed to the Federal District Court of Justice. The collegial decision was unfavorable. “It seems lawful to use records of dialogues between two co-defendants, on a notebook, then seized by court order, to support the accusatory piece. It is clear from the complaint that there is other evidence to justify the initiation of criminal action, and there is then just cause for this need.”
Unsatisfied with the decision, the defense appealed to the STJ. In the Habeas Corpus request, he maintained that the trial would be null and void, since the session would have been composed mainly of summoned judges, violating the principle of natural justice. He also defended the lack of just cause for the criminal action because the complaint was based only on evidence obtained “illicitly”, that is, the recording of the conversation without the accused's knowledge, using the interlocutor's notebook. With information from the STJ Press Office.
Minister Laurita Vaz, rapporteur of the case, said that “the eventual nullity of the environmental recording of the conversation made by one of the co-defendants, without the knowledge of the other, would not have the power to result in the ineptitude (lack of just cause) of the complaint, a since the initial is not exclusively based on this evidence, but on several other indicative elements, such as documentary Austria Phone Numbers List evidence relating to the individuals or legal entities involved in the investigations, as well as recordings of telephone interceptions obtained through judicial authorization, which disrupted the money embezzlement scheme ”.
Regarding the defense arguments, she claimed that “it does not offend the principle of natural justice, the summoning of first degree judges to, in cases of possible removal of the main judge, form the judging body of the respective Court, as long as the legal guidelines are observed. ”.
The rapporteur clarified that possible irregularities in the investigation phase of the case do not result in the annulment of the accusatory statement, because it is during the criminal action that the Court will be able to verify the existence or not of the alleged defects, as well as their scope. “In this context, preventing the State, in advance, from exercising its jurisdictional function, prohibiting it from even collecting evidence to verify the truth of the facts, constitutes a hypothesis of extreme exceptionality, not evidenced in kind, making It is therefore premature to suspend the criminal action brought against the patient”, he concluded.
The Public Prosecutor's Office charged the accused with the crimes of money laundering and concealment of assets, rights and values. To support the request, he used, in addition to other evidence, such as documents relating to the individuals and legal entities involved in the investigation, an environmental recording of the conversation via a notebook made between the accused (who did not know he was being recorded) and another ran.
Alleging a lack of just cause for opening the criminal action, as it was based on this recording, the accused appealed to the Federal District Court of Justice. The collegial decision was unfavorable. “It seems lawful to use records of dialogues between two co-defendants, on a notebook, then seized by court order, to support the accusatory piece. It is clear from the complaint that there is other evidence to justify the initiation of criminal action, and there is then just cause for this need.”
Unsatisfied with the decision, the defense appealed to the STJ. In the Habeas Corpus request, he maintained that the trial would be null and void, since the session would have been composed mainly of summoned judges, violating the principle of natural justice. He also defended the lack of just cause for the criminal action because the complaint was based only on evidence obtained “illicitly”, that is, the recording of the conversation without the accused's knowledge, using the interlocutor's notebook. With information from the STJ Press Office.