Court finds insufficient proof in Bolsonaro aide case

Court finds insufficient proof in Bolsonaro aide case
A federal court in Brasília has dismissed an administrative-improbity lawsuit against former President Jair Bolsonaro and Walderice Santos da Conceição, known as Wal do Açaí, concluding that the evidence did not establish that her parliamentary job was fictitious or that public funds were diverted.

Judge Rodrigo de Godoy Mendes found no “conclusive proof of a fictitious appointment, diversion of duties to domestic tasks, illicit enrichment and effective harm to public funds.” The ruling ends the case at first instance, though the Federal Public Ministry (MPF) may appeal.

The decision aligns with Bolsonaro’s longstanding argument that Santos could legally work outside Brasília. Parliamentary aides are not required to perform their duties exclusively at the Chamber of Deputies, the judge noted; they may operate in the states represented by lawmakers. Mendes accepted that Santos could have acted as an intermediary between residents of Vila Histórica de Mambucaba, in Angra dos Reis, and Bolsonaro’s office.

That conclusion contrasts with the MPF’s case, filed in 2022. Prosecutors alleged that Santos was paid as a parliamentary secretary while she and her partner performed private work for Bolsonaro, including caring for his Angra dos Reis residence and dogs. They sought 280,273.44 reais in reimbursement, arguing that Bolsonaro certified her attendance despite her not performing official duties.

Cash withdrawals were another point of dispute. The MPF said 83.77% of Santos’s salary was withdrawn in cash during the period under scrutiny, exceeding 95% in some years. Mendes held that this did not prove diversion or illicit sharing of funds, citing the community’s limited access to in-person banking and the absence of evidence that money was passed to Bolsonaro.

The judge also said shortcomings in documenting a 40-hour workweek could reflect administrative disorganization or difficulty supervising external work, rather than a fraudulent hiring arrangement. The ruling applied the requirement under Brazil’s updated improbity law that intentional wrongdoing be demonstrated.

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