Police probe tests Petrobras safeguards and allegations of influence

Police probe tests Petrobras safeguards and allegations of influence
Brazil’s Federal Police are investigating whether Fábio Luís Lula da Silva, known as Lulinha, businesswoman Roberta Luchsinger and former presidential chief of staff Marco Aurélio Santana Ribeiro played a role in advancing Unigel’s interests in a proposed Petrobras fertilizer arrangement.

The inquiry centers on a tolling contract under which Petrobras would supply natural gas to Unigel plants in Bahia and Sergipe, receiving fertilizer in return. The Federal Court of Accounts and Petrobras risk assessments flagged the model’s exposure at a time of high gas costs and weak fertilizer prices; Petrobras’ estimated potential loss was R$487.1 million. Investigators are assessing whether contacts and financial information point to coordinated efforts to influence the negotiation, rather than treating those allegations as established fact.

Those named reject the premise of improper intervention. Lulinha’s lawyer said the defense had not been given access to the case file and described the disclosure of investigative material as “selective” and “criminal,” arguing that unverified hypotheses were being presented as facts. Luchsinger’s representatives likewise said leaked messages were being used to create political effects ahead of an election. Ribeiro’s defense denied that he brokered negotiations or acted for private interests, saying his role was limited to routing presidential-office requests through normal institutional procedures.

The companies’ accounts also differ from the suspicion of a financially harmful arrangement. Petrobras said the contract, signed in December 2023, expired in June 2024 after conditions for it to become effective were not met. It said negotiations were handled by technical committees under internal governance rules and that no executive director discussed the matter with the people named. Unigel said it followed applicable law and governance procedures, and stressed that the agreement “was never implemented,” so it generated neither gains nor losses.

The investigation therefore turns on a distinction central to both sides: whether communications around an unimplemented deal amounted to improper influence, or were simply part of a disputed effort to keep fertilizer facilities operating.

https://brazil-test-hub.syndichain.com Brazil News Hub brazil-test-hub brazil-test-hub