In a document to the Justice, Patrick Linares da Costa points out a personal problem with the prosecutor of Ponta Porã
Investigated by Gaeco (Special Action Group for the Repression of Organized Crime) as part of Operation Codicia (greed, in Spanish), police chief Patrick Linares da Costa accuses prosecutor Gisleine Dal Bó of persecution due to personal problems and per episode. involving her husband, a military police officer.
He is suspected of charging bribes to return vehicles seized by the Ponta Porã Civil Police to the owners.
Former head of the 2nd Police Station of Ponta Porã, Patrick Linares da Costa was one of the targets of the operation triggered on April 25 this year. Gaeco asked for his preventive detention, but the request was denied by the Justice. However, the Judiciary determined a series of precautionary measures against the delegate, including removal from office and prohibition of frequenting police buildings.
Because of these restrictions, Patrick Linares da Costa was not sworn in as a substitute judge on the 27th of last month at the TJMS (Court of Justice of Mato Grosso do Sul). He was approved in a public tender last year.
This week, the defense of the delegate filed a request in court for the repeal of the precautionary measures. In the 32-page document to which the Campo Grande News had access, lawyer Diego Marcos Gonçalves refutes all the accusations made by Gaeco and points out the alleged persecution of prosecutor Gisleine Dal Bó, head of the 3rd Criminal Prosecutor’s Office in Ponta Porã.
“The investigated [delegado] has a personal enmity with Dr. Gisleine Dal Bó, from the 3rd Prosecutor’s Office of Ponta Porã, and both at the beginning of their professional relationship had a totally friendly and friendly contact, but after some clarifications and positions not consistent with the urbanity, respect and cordiality of Dr. Gisleine, Dr. Patrick answered her, clarifying that she was disrespecting his competence, without being disrespectful or threatening, he just positioned himself as the authority that he is, “says the defense.
Patrick’s lawyer also cites an episode in which the prosecutor would have refused to respond to the greeting of the delegate’s wife when they lived in the same building in Ponta Porã.
The situation worsened, according to the defense, after a problem involving the delegate and the prosecutor’s husband, who is a military police officer. At the time, Patrick Linares was stationed at the Antônio João Police Station.
“Mr R. [o PM] led an individual to the police station and when he arrived at the DP he complained of having been assaulted by the police officers responsible for his approach, showing the apparent injuries he had suffered. The Doctor. Patrick prepared a report on the occurrence on 10/06/2019, which further damaged their relationship. After that, a real ‘witch hunt’ with revenge animus began”, says the defense.
vehicles – The document filed by the defense lawyer cites another accusation by Gaeco that the delegate failed to initiate investigations in some cases involving the seizure of vehicles, in addition to illegally releasing the use of seized cars for civil police officers. The information would have been reports from the 3rd Prosecutor’s Office of Ponta Porã.
According to the operation’s report, the 3rd Prosecutor’s Office reported at least five different situations, between 2017 and 2019, in which irregularities occurred in the conduct of police investigations within the 2nd DP of Ponta Porã where vehicles were seized.
“The investigated has personal enmity with the prosecutor Gisleine Dal Bó, responsible for the 3rd Prosecutor’s Office of Ponta Porã, which makes all her reports and reports about the investigated suspect. In a ruse seeking to denigrate the image of the investigated, he puts the same as being conniving and aware of the wrongdoings perpetrated”, states the defense of Patrick Linares.
The defense document continues: “the fact is that there are 5 prosecutors in the Ponta Porã district, 3 of which are in the criminal area and none of them reported any illicit act by Mr. Patrick, only Dr. Gisleine in a related act of persecution, wanting solely and exclusively to harm the investigated”.
For the defense, the delegate is only investigated “given the way in which Dr. Gisleine prepared the reports and sent them to Gaeco, placing Dr. Patrick as a criminal and the group’s mentor and guarantor [investigado]. Subjective and personal analysis”, states the document.
In the petition sent to the Judiciary, lawyer Diego Gonçalves mentioned that Patick Linares da Costa was not even working in Ponta Porã when the crime that started the operation would have occurred in April last year. The case involved the collection of a bribe of R$ 5 thousand for the release of a stolen truck in Rio de Janeiro and recovered at the border. That month, Patrick Linares was still in Antônio João’s PD.
“The breach of telephone and telematics data brought nothing to the investigation. The breaking of bank data is also not possible, since the movements placed as suspicious were rejected and clarified in this act”, says the defense. According to the lawyer, the deposits cited as suspicious were made by the delegate himself and his wife.
The defense continues: “the search and seizure were unsuccessful, since nothing irregular, illegal, or relevant to the investigation was found. The Doctor. Patrick spontaneously introduced himself and handed over his unlocked cell phone.”
The request was filed with the 2nd Criminal Court of Campo Grande, but Judge Olivar Augusto Roberti Coneglian (who decreed the arrests and other warrants served on the 25th) declined jurisdiction for the Ponta Porã Court, where the request will be analyzed.
Gaeco – THE Campo Grande News sought out the Public Ministry of Mato Grosso do Sul to comment on the defense arguments. In a note sent by the advisory, the Coordination of Gaeco/MPMS informed that the “investigation was conducted by the members of the Group stationed in Campo Grande, and not in the Comarca de Ponta Porã.
“In the analysis of the formation of the evidentiary framework, personal impressions of any colleagues were not taken into account, only materialized elements of concrete physical or digital traces”, says the MP.