The Fourth Class of Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region (TRF-3), in São Paulo, this week confirmed the judgment of the first instance of the Federal Justice who condemned the former president Squid The pay attorney fees of BRL 829,000, value fixed in 2018 and pending correction. The decision was taken after analyzing an appeal presented by the PT in the context of an action in which the Attorney General’s Office of the National Treasury (PGFN) is trying to receive a debt of 18 million of reais from the former president, the Lula Institute and LILS Lectures (in 2015 this debt was 15.3 million reais).
In the same judgment, the TRF-3 upheld the decision of the lower court that blocked 525,000 reais from LILS Palestras to guarantee payment of part of the debts. The court released, however, 40 minimum wages and a blocked account of Lula. As revealed by VEJA, in another case in the Federal Court, the PGFN points out Lula’s involvement in corruption schemes, receipt of illicit advantage, presentation of false declaration and fraudulent practice and charges a debt of 1.3 million reais. In both cases, therefore, the ex-president’s debts total 19.3 million reais.
The PGFN says that the Lula Institute, which presented itself as a civil association for non-economic purposes, did not meet the requirements for enjoying benefits between 2011 and 2014. Hence the judicial collection. “Among the irregularities identified, the diversion of funds from the Lula Institute to the benefit of former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and his lecture company LILS Palestras stands out”, alleges the PGFN.
In 2010, when he left the presidency, Lula settled at the institute’s headquarters and began to develop political and business activities – in this case, through LILS. Between 2011 and 2015, he received BRL 27 million in 72 lectures paid for by contractors who obtained fraudulent contracts with Petrobras or favors in PT governments. “The Union demonstrated that the Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva Institute created a real corruption scheme at Petrobras, investigated in the operation called ‘Lava Jato’, launched by the Federal Public Ministry, the Federal Police and the Federal Revenue, in which the largest contractors in the country were involved. , who were also the largest donors to the Instituto Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Instituto Lula)”, wrote National Treasury Attorney Leandro Groff in one of the petitions.
“Thus, it was amply proven in the present case that the appellees used the structure of the Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva Institute, ‘civil association for non-economic purposes’, exempt from IRPJ and exempt from the CSLL calculation, to receive amounts in the form of ” donation” and divert them to former President Lula and the lecture company LILS Palestras”. In his appeal, Lula had asked the TRF-3 to “minor” the legal fees set by the Federal Court. The former president and his institute claimed that “there was no practice of acts of asset emptying”.
The part of the appeal on behalf of LILS Palestras defended the inexistence of joint and several liability and asked for the release of the amounts blocked in their accounts. Did not work. The TRF-3 also took a stand against the extinction of the action to collect Lula’s debts. “As for the allegation of need to extinguish the act, the fact is that the matters raised by the parties about the alleged use of illegal evidence refer to the very merits of the imposition of tax exaction, a matter that is foreign to the scope of the present case”, says the decision of the court. “Any nullity of the tax credits must be argued in the appropriate procedural way, mainly because with the elements of the records it is not possible to envision the nullity pointed out in a plan”.
“The allegation as to the absence of grounds for blocking the assets, due to the lack of demonstration of squandering or fraudulent behavior, also fails”, says the court. “It is worth noting that in addition to having evidenced in the administrative sphere elements indicative of a possible practice of activities aimed at suppressing taxation among the defendants, it is to be recognized that they did not bring to the case any concrete elements capable of dispelling the presumption of veracity of the defendants. contested administrative acts.
One of the defense lawyers told VEJA that there are still appeals to the TRF-3 decision, but he did not anticipate what type of appeal will be filed in court.