web viewtems i and: ii : of : a: ... complaint grounded in police investigation, ... therefore,...

HONORABLE FEDERAL JUDGE OF THE 13th FEDERAL CRIMINAL

COURT OF THE JUDICIAL SUBDISTRICT OF CURITIBA/PR.

Forgery plea No. 5043015-38.2017.4.04.7000/PR(Case No. 5063130-17.2016.4.04.7000)

LUIZ INÁCIO LULA DA SILVA, already qualified in the

record of the FORGERY PLEA mentioned above (in the criminal case described

above), which is in progress before this Court, comes respectfully before Your Honor,

by his undersigned lawyers, to state his position regarding what was presented by the

Federal Attorney’s Office (event 31) according to the arguments of fact and right

outlined below.

– I –

BACKGROUND

During the interrogation of the Movant, in the hearing conducted

on September 13, 2017, this Court and the Federal Attorney’s Office asked many

questions and insistently, concerning the location of receipts related to the monthly

payments of rental fees agreed between co-defendant Glaucos da Costamarques (owner

and landlord) and Mrs. Marisa Letícia Lula da Silva (tenant) – while avoiding questions

São PauloR. Pe. João Manuel 755 19º

andarJd Paulista | 01411-001Tel.: 55 11 3060-3310Fax: 55 11 3061-2323

Rio de Janeiro R. Primeiro de Março 23 Conj.

1606Centro| 20010-904

Tel.: 55 21 3852-8280

BrasíliaSAS Quadra 1 Bloco M Lote 1

Ed. Libertas Conj. 1009Asa Sul | 70070-935

Tel./Fax: 55 61 3326-9905www.teixeiramartins.com.br

about the real object of the mentioned criminal case, which involve (eight) 08 specific

contracts of Petrobras, according to the complaint filed.

On the occasion, this Court suggested1 that the Movant gathered

the above-mentioned payment receipts:

Federal Judge: So, Mr. former president, you complain about these unfair accusations, but I’d suggest, in this case, if this rent was paid, that you gather the receipts to this proceeding, still...

Defense: Your Honor, if the system is still the same, the prosecution must produce the evidence of guilt and not the accused the proof of innocence, so I thank you for these directions given by Your Honor, but I prefer the constitutional system.

Federal Judge: Fine. You too, sir, must provide these receipts, if there are any, okay?

Defense: Thanks. (emphasis added).

Thus, in attendance to the judge’s urging, many receipts were

located and brought to the record in digitalized version, on August 25, 20172.

After that, the Federal Attorney’s Office filed this Forgery plea

(event 01), challenging the receipts previously requested and, then, presented by the

Defense:

[...] some elements indicate that twenty-six (26) among the supposed receipts presented by the defense of LUIZ INÁCIO LULA DA SILVA were fabricated in order to provide false grounds to the simulated leasing of apartment 121, that is, they suggest these are fake documents [...]

1 Criminal case No. 5063130-17.2016.4.04.7000, event 1086.2 Criminal Case No. 5063130-17.2016.4.04.7000, event 1080.




1606Centro| 20010-904

Tel.: 55 21 3852-8280



Tel./Fax: 55 61 3326-990

www.teixeiramartins.com.br

2

http://www.teixeiramartins.com.br/

The prosecution, in its initial complaint, tried to make up the

theory that these payments related to the leasing contract were never made. Therefore,

the receipts presented by the Movant are allegedly “forged”.

Finally, the prosecution requested that the Court required the

Defense to present the physical original copies of the receipts gathered in digital

format, and to point out, on that occasion, where the documents were found and by

whom, for the purpose of further conduction of forensic handwriting and

document analyses.

Subsequently, (event 03), this Court ruled that the Defense had to

provide an answer concerning the existence of original copies of the receipts. If yes, the

documents should be submitted to the clerk’s office of the court.

The Defense of the Movant, successively, provided an answer

(event 06) in response to the allegation of the Federal Attorney’s Office. At that time,

the defense gave evidence that co-defendant Glaucos da Costamarques restated being de

facto owner of the leased property. He highlighted, also, the fact that the landlord never

put the presented documents in question in relation to its authenticity.

On the same occasion, the Defense explained that:

(i) The receipts were sought, located and presented;

(ii) The accountant Mr. João M. Leite clarified, in writing, that he was

given the receipts “periodically” from Mr. da Costamarques;




1606Centro| 20010-904

Tel.: 55 21 3852-8280



Tel./Fax: 55 61 3326-990


3


(iii) The owner-landlord reported to the Revenue Service and the Federal

Police the rental receipts up to 2016;

(iv) The breach of bank secrecy of the owner-landlord demonstrates

financial transactions compatible with the payment of rental fees;

(v) The owner-landlord collected tax due on the receipt of rental fees

(monthly income tax payments);

(vi) The Federal Attorney’s Office uses fabricated, non-exhaustive

spreadsheets related to house expenses, purportedly found in the

Movant’s apartment;

(vii) The rental receipts at issue were not the target of the search and

seizure carried out in the home of the Movant;

(viii) The evidentiary strength of the receipts with release from debt is

supported by law (Civil Code, Article 319);

(ix) The Defense looked for and presented the documents as urged by the

Court, in the manner that it was described before. By requesting the

payment receipts, Your Honor acknowledged the evidentiary strength of

these documents.

Still on the same occasion, the Defense agreed to present original

copies of the payment receipts, and requested that a hearing was scheduled so the




1606Centro| 20010-904

Tel.: 55 21 3852-8280



Tel./Fax: 55 61 3326-990


4


documents would be delivered in the presence of an expert — in order to approve the

conditions in which the material would be delivered.

As the request of a formal hearing was rejected by the Court

(event 09), the Defense delivered original copies of the receipts found to the Clerk’s

office on 10/24/2017 (event 14).

In another decision (event 17), the Court ruled that the Federal

Attorney’s Office pointed out which expert examination it expected, presented the

requirements that should be observed and appointed the technical assistant.

Afterward, the Federal Attorney’s Office replied (event 31) on

November 09, 2017. To the surprise of the Defense, the Federal Attorney’s Office, after

talking in riddles for so long while trying desperately to find some reasonability in the

fabricated story, failed to fulfill the order of the Court, and having also failed to

determine the expert analysis intended and the documents that should be examined, as

well as the requirements to be observed.

Instead of fulfilling the Court’s order, it requested the production

of parol evidence, with the testimony of João Muniz Leite and Glauco da Costamarques.

Absolutely, the request of the Federal Attorney’s Office must be

denied.




1606Centro| 20010-904

Tel.: 55 21 3852-8280



Tel./Fax: 55 61 3326-990


5


– II –

LAW

NON-OBSERVANCE OF THE PROCEDURE

The procedure for the Forgery plea is described in Article 145 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, as follows:

“Article 145. Should the authenticity of a document in the record be challenged, in writing, in observance of the following procedure, the judge shall:

I – order the objection in separate, and then hear the challenged party, which shall provide an answer within 48 hours;II – assign the period of 3 days, successively, to each party, to give evidence of the allegations;III – after the case is held by the judge under advisement, he may order as he deems necessary;IV – if forgery is recognized for an unappealable decision, he shall order the document to be separated and send it, along with the plea, to the Federal Attorney’s Office.”

As previously described, the Federal Attorney’s Office filed a

forgery plea (Article 145, head provision) regarding the receipts of rental fees of

Glaucos da Costamarques’s apartment in São Bernardo do Campo, SP. At that time, it

requested the conduction of a forensic handwriting and document expert analysis of the

original copies, while failing to present the requirements on the ground that they would

be presented later (event 01):

“(2) order the conduction of a forensic handwriting and document expert analysis of the original copies, in order to clarify the requirements to be timely presented by the Federal Attorney’s Office and by the defendants, after notified for such.”




1606Centro| 20010-904

Tel.: 55 21 3852-8280



Tel./Fax: 55 61 3326-990


6


In compliance with items I and II of Article 145, Your Honor

ordered that the Defense of the Movant was notified in order to provide an answer and

“equally, clarify he it wants to request any evidence regarding the plea” (event 03).

As a result, the Movant pointed out nine (9) elements that

disprove the false premises of the Federal Attorney’s Office all at once (event 06).

GUSTAVO BADARÓ highlights that the following phase, from

Article 145, item III, would be the court’s consideration regarding the pertinence and

relevance of the requests:

“The judge “may order whatever measures he deems necessary” (Article 145, III). Of course, such provision does not authorize a discretionary power which, arbitrarily, may annul the right of the moving party to prove what he claims. The judge shall grant the production of the evidence requested according to the normal rules of admissibility, especially, pertinence and relevance.”3.

However, this Court failed to observe the procedure of item III of

Article 145 and, in the decision dated 10/25/2017 (event 17), instead of either granting

or denying the production of evidence, the Court notified the Federal Attorney’s Office

to “precise the expert examination intended”.

E ven in face of the NEW opportunity (Event 31), the Federal

Attorney’s Office failed to clarify the nature of the expert evidence previously

requested, as well as did not present the requirements.

Rather, in this case, it requested testimonies to be collected and,

then, to only deal with the expert evidence in the future.

3 Badaró, G. (2016) Processo Penal [Criminal Procedure]. 4th edition. São Paulo: RT, p. 351.




1606Centro| 20010-904

Tel.: 55 21 3852-8280



Tel./Fax: 55 61 3326-990


7


Of course this situation is incompatible with the way set out in

the law, which cannot be altered at the will of the Federal Attorney’s Office or of this

Court.

According to the understanding of the Federal Supreme Court,

non-compliance with formal requirements in specific procedures is a violation of the

constitutional right to a fair hearing:

“SYLLABUS: HABEAS CORPUS. CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL LAW. UNBAILABLE CRIMES COMMITTED BY A PUBLIC OFFICIAL. COMPLAINT GROUNDED IN POLICE INVESTIGATION. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE SET OUT IN ARTICLE 514 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING (BRAZILIAN CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 5, ITEM LV). Unbailable crimes committed by public officials that have definitions as crime in the law. Complaint grounded in police investigation, ignoring the procedure set out in Article 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Non-compliance with formal requirements in specific procedures brutally violates the constitutional right to a fair hearing. Writ granted.”4

Similarly, the Criminal Panels of the Superior Court of Justice

have settled the understanding that non-compliance with the procedural provision

represents a violation of the right to a fair hearing:

“CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL LAW. DRUG TRAFFIC. SPECIAL PROCEDURE. ARTICLE 38 OF LAW NO. 10,409/02. FAIR HEARING. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. PREVIOUS ADVERSARY PROCEEDING. LEGAL PROVISION. NON-COMPLIANCE. ABSOLUTE NULLITY. 1. T he procedure provided for in Law No. 10,409/02 gives, in consonance with the constitutional ideal, a greater scope to the defense of the defendant. 2. The previous adversary proceeding offers, undoubtedly, more effectiveness to the constitutional principle of the fair hearing, as it seeks to avoid, according to the law, one’s subjection to a criminal procedure

4 Federal Supreme Court, Habeas Corpus #95,402, Rapporteur: Justice Eros Grau, Second Panel, decided on 03.31.2009, Electronic Court Register, 05.07.2009.




1606Centro| 20010-904

Tel.: 55 21 3852-8280



Tel./Fax: 55 61 3326-990


8


which, evidently, damages the status dignitatis of citizens. 3. Non-compliance, by the judge, with Article 38 of Law 10,409/02, creates the absolute nullity of the case. 4. Writ granted to annul the procedure, ab initio.”5

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------“CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL LAW. HABEAS CORPUS. ARTICLE 14 OF LAW NO. 6,368/76. PREVENTIVE DETENTION. REASONING. INAPPLICABILITY OF THE COMPLAINT. NON-OCCURRENCE. NON-OBSERVANCE OF THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED IN THE NEW LAW ON DRUGS. NULLITY OF THE CASE. I – The decision that announced the preventive detention is duly grounded, while acknowledging that the offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it, and mentions the concrete situation which is characterized by the guarantee of public order, in the case, consistent with the intention to prevent the action of a criminal organization dedicated to, among other illegal activities, the illegal traffic of drugs (Precedents). II – The complaint, at first, is not defective when, in compliance with the provision of Article 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it describes, in theory, a fact that is defined as a crime in law, with the respective circumstances, the qualification of the accused, the classification of the criminal offense, and the list of witnesses. III – In the event of a joinder of defendants – as in this case – one cannot speak of the complaint’s defectiveness in view of the lack of a detailed individualization of the actions of each one if the imputation of the fact allows for the exercise of the fair hearing. IV – According to the precedents, non-compliance with the procedure set out in Law No. 10,409/02, constitutes the absolute nullity of the case, while it is dispensable to give proof of the damage (Precedents of the Superior Court of Justice and the Federal Supreme Court). Writ partially granted.”6

In fact, what the Federal Attorney’s Office intends through the

requirements implied in Event 31 is to reopen the evidentiary stage, which already

heard 98 witnesses, in addition to the interrogations.

It should be placed on record the need for the progress of the

present case to be coherent with the one set out by this Court in the connected Criminal

Case (Case No. 5046512-94.2016.4.04.7000/PR). In this latter case, the Movant

requested the production of evidence to clarify the contents of documents entered into

5 Superior Court of Justice, Habeas Corpus #32,516. Rapporteur: Justice Hamilton Carvalhido, Sixth panel, decided on 03.01.2005, published on 05.16.2005.6 Superior Court of Justice, Habeas Corpus No. 54,116. Rapporteur: Justice Felix Fischer, Fifth Panel, decided on 09.26.2006, published on 11.06.2006.




1606Centro| 20010-904

Tel.: 55 21 3852-8280



Tel./Fax: 55 61 3326-990


9


the record in the phase provided in Article 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as

well as filed the forgery plea No. 5046512-94.2016.4.04.7000/PR. However, this Court

understood that it would not be appropriate to reopen the evidentiary stage:

“Both the main and additional evidentiary stages are closed.

No more evidence shall be produced.

The documents were entered into the record by the parties within the periods established by the Court, there being nothing irregular, though the collection of evidence does not reopen the evidentiary stage. Entering the documents into the record and the period given for providing an answer represent its submission to the adversary proceeding, being senseless to claim the need for the production of new evidence.”

Well, the same understanding must be applied to the case at issue.

Because, we insist, the legal procedure does not allow us to admit

the pretension of the Federal Attorney’s Office.

Will the defense be able to hear witnesses such as Rodrigo Tacla

Duran 7 (whose testimony was denied during the evidentiary phase) before the expert

evidence in the plea8 that was filed to challenge the documents entered into the record

by the Federal Attorney’s Office and defendant Marcelo Odebrecht? Will it also be able

to establish its own procedure for a plea previously filed to that end?

Thus, in view of all the stated above, we can conclude that the

requests made by the Federal Attorney’s Office in Event 31 must be denied as they are 7 As reported by the media, Mr. Rodrigo Tacla Duran made several declarations that put in doubt documents taken from the systems MyWebDay and Drousys, and others.8 Forgery plea No. 5037409-29.2017.4.04.7000/PR.




1606Centro| 20010-904

Tel.: 55 21 3852-8280



Tel./Fax: 55 61 3326-990


10


incompatible with the procedure and, also, with a previous ruling of this Court (event

17).

– III –

LACK OF PERTINENCE OF THE EVIDENCE FROM ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE

Even though the foregoing is solved, which is accepted as

argumentation, the requests made by the Federal Attorney’s Office in Event 31 must be

denied.

As mentioned, the Federal Attorney’s Office made a noise, in the

filing of the plea, about the need for expert evidence. Now it tries strategically and

deceivingly move back because it knows the receipts are authentic and reflect the

real truth .

It cannot be accepted that evidence which will be of no use to

overcome what is documented in the record by objective elements, proving that the

rental fees have been paid, as it was already demonstrated on record.

The last answer of the Federal Attorney’s Office makes no change

in this scenario at all.




1606Centro| 20010-904

Tel.: 55 21 3852-8280



Tel./Fax: 55 61 3326-990


11


At this stage, the Movant will analyze each and every statement

written in the answer given by the Federal Attorney’s Office, and prove that they

convey lies and fallacies.

See the excerpt below:

As demonstrated in the initial pleading, the simulated rent of apartment 121 is evidenced by various elements collected and confirmed in the course of the evidentiary stage, namely:

Mr. GLAUCOS DA COSTAMARQUES acted as an intermediary to purchase the property at “rua Dr. Haberbeck Brandão, n. 178”, in São Paulo, with illegal money from the Odebrecht Group, as the property was intended to house the Institute of LUIZ INÁCIO LULA DA SILVA, which ensured him with the gross amount of R$ 800 thousand, of which R$ 504 thousand was used to purchase apartment 121, which he was also an intermediary to, with both transactions being arranged concomitantly in 2010.

These statements are totally disconnected from truth. The

sentence highlighted in bold “with both transactions being arranged concomitantly in

2010” is an affront to a coherent thinking, able to express a cause and consequence

relationship.

“Concomitantly”, which is formed by concomitant + ly, according

to the dictionary means “that which accompanies or co-exists; that happens or is done

at the same time; accessory or secondary”.




1606Centro| 20010-904

Tel.: 55 21 3852-8280



Tel./Fax: 55 61 3326-990


12


Therefore, according to the meaning of the word, and especially

by using the least deductive reasoning, it is impossible to conclude — unless in a

biased and deceiving way — that “from the gross amount of R$ 800 thousand, R$ 504

thousand was used to purchase apartment 121”, because:

1. Mr. Glaucos da Costamarques acquired apartment 121 with an amount

totally dissociated from the one received in the real estate transaction

confirmedly lawful, which involved the property at “Rua Haberbeck Brandão,

nº 178”.

There is no concomitance in the transactions, because the acquisition of said

apartment is not secondary and much less accessory, in the same way it did not

happen at the same time as the transaction of the property at “Rua Haberbeck

Brandão”. On the contrary, the purchase of the apartment occurred and was

paid months before the receipt of R$ 800 thousand.

2. The same reports related to the breach of bank secrecy mentioned — also

in a distorted way — in an item further in the document of the Federal

Attorney’s Office, at times refuted (event 48, case No. 504268915-

2016.4.04.7000), clearly present the origins, dates and, consequently, the

financial chronology, as well as the amounts operated and related to both distinct

and dissociated transactions.

For that end, it is necessary to make minimum efforts in compiling the

information in the report named “Tipo #4”, from the breach of secrecy, aiming at

finding out the balance of the bank accounts on the dates before the purchase of




1606Centro| 20010-904

Tel.: 55 21 3852-8280



Tel./Fax: 55 61 3326-990


13


the apartment (Aug. 10, 2010), resulting from cash assets and financial

investments operated for a long time by Glaucos da Costamarques. See below:

Bank Account type Balances on Aug. 10,2010Banco Bradesco S.A. Checking 1.00Banco Bradesco S.A. Savings 362.35Banco do Brasil S.A. Checking 10,244.92Banco do Brasil S.A. Investment – CD 742,966.58Banco Mercantil S.A. Checking 136.90Banco Real S.A. Checking 655.48Banco Real S.A. Investment 77,180.83Banco Itaú S.A. Checking 150.00Banco Itaú S.A. Investment 99,850.01Banco Itaú S.A. Checking 10.00Available balance on Aug. 10, 2010 – R$ 0

Thus, it can be noted from the very reports presented by the Federal Attorney’s

Office, related to the breach of bank secrecy of Mr. Glaucos da Costamarques,

who one day before the issuance of checks to pay apartment 121, i.e., on August

10, 2010, had R$ 931,558.07 available, which evidently have no relation to the

amount received on December 20, 2010, 4 months later, originated from the

real estate transaction of “Rua Haberbeck Brandão”.

3. For the payment of apartment 121, Mr. Glaucos da Costamarques, as it is in the

breach of bank secrecy report, used the checking account No. 35009, with Banco

do Brasil S.A., branch 1881, which on August 11, 2010 was credited in R$

528.349,12, resulting from the write-off in the investment account of Mr. da

Costamarques himself, with the same branch of Banco do Brasil S.A..

Still on Aug. 11, 2010, a debit was authorized for settling out the property in

question (apartment 121), a total amount of R$ 504,072.00 (R$ 94,024.00; R$




1606Centro| 20010-904

Tel.: 55 21 3852-8280



Tel./Fax: 55 61 3326-990


14


390,024.00 and R$ 20,024.00), with R$ 504,000.00 intended entirely to

purchasing the property, and R$ 72.00 related to a fee charged by the bank.

Below is part of the report from the breach of secrecy, where the following

transactions are listed:

4. Finally, and so that not any doubt raised by the fallacies brought by the Federal

Attorney’s Office remain, we have reproduced, below, the amount received by

Mr. Glaucos da Costamarques related to the transaction for the property at “rua

Haberbeck Brandão”, which in addition to happening on December 20, 2010,

was not even made to accounts with Banco do Brasil S.A., since it was credited

in the checking account No. 115462, branch 8109, with Banco Itaú Unibanco

S.A.:




1606Centro| 20010-904

Tel.: 55 21 3852-8280



Tel./Fax: 55 61 3326-990


15


In view of all the foregoing, the Federal Attorney’s Office,

besides all the fallacies it brought to the record so that the absurd hypothesis of the

prosecution would remain effective at any cost, is also distorting the enshrined idea of

“follow the money”, and using instead a rule which can not even be called inverse, but

unknown and completely illogical, it seems to us more like leaving another money trail,

or altering the money trail.

Truth is, there is no “concomitance” between the acquisitions, let

alone an accessory relation.

Neither is there any relation to the amount stemming from the 8

contracts signed by Petrobras listed in the complaint, which is not even considered by

the Federal Attorney’s Office in its statement.

But that is not all.

Following that, the Federal Attorney’s Office says:

The breach of bank secrecy proves there is no financial flow indicating the payment of rent for apartment 121, as deposits in cash of amounts compatible with the values set as rent appear only by December 2015 .

Here, the Federal Attorney’s Office makes another mistake or

writes in a biased way, because the sentence highlighted (“as deposits in cash of

amounts compatible with the values set as rent appear only by December 2015 — is not

true.




1606Centro| 20010-904

Tel.: 55 21 3852-8280



Tel./Fax: 55 61 3326-990


16


Taking into account that the Federal Attorney’s Office gives no

detail about the deposits mentioned and which it claimed to have “appeared”, we

assume by the date mentioned, that the amounts are detailed as “Deposits in Cash at the

ATM”, which, coincidently, there are credits in the checking account No. 10007473,

branch 3465, Banco Santander S.A., owned by Glaucos da Costamarques on December

10, 2015.

Despite the efforts of the Federal Attorney’s Office to try —

artificially — to link the date of said deposits to the beginning of the investigations

related to the Movant, as well as the dates reported by Glaucos da Costamarque in his

testimonies (in contradiction to all his previous), the Federal Attorney’s Office omitted

and/or did not analyze the other deposits in cash paid to the accounts of Glaucos da

Costamarques since 2011, whose amounts is close to R$ 2,000,000.00 — everything

detailed in the report from the breach of bank secrecy.

It should also be highlighted that, in the accounts used by Mrs. Da

Silva, either in her name, in the name of the Movant or a joint account, there are also

debits equivalents with the description “Withdrawal from ATM”, but, since long before

December of 2015, a fact ignored in the analyzes by the Federal Attorney’s Office.

Additionally, there are other withdrawals made with checks from

mentioned accounts, whose final destination certainly involved the payment of rent in

cash directly to Mr. Glaucos da Costamarques or the person appointed by him. Proof of

this is that there are indeed financial transactions able to prove the payment of rental

fees, which are the amounts in cash deposited to the account by Mr. da Costamarques




1606Centro| 20010-904

Tel.: 55 21 3852-8280



Tel./Fax: 55 61 3326-990


17


himself and people not identified, which exceed the amounts payable for rent within the

period, plus the ATM inflow, also not analyzed by the Federal Attorney’s Office.

Later, the Federal Attorney’s Office states:

The spreadsheet collected at the home of LUIZ INÁCIO LULA DA SILVA and Marisa Letícia Lula da Silva, named “CONTAS MENSAIS 2º Sem. 2011” [Monthly bills 2nd half 2011] (case No. 500659738.2016.4.04.7000, event 6, AP-INQPOL5, PDF 7), which lists house expenses of the former President’s family, makes no reference to payments of rent for apartment 121, although it records expenses with condominium fees, energy, and tax related to this same property.

Again, the Federal Attorney’s Office has distorted the

information brought to the record, in addition to doing incomplete analyses that are

prejudicial to the conclusions. In this case, said spreadsheet, whose authorship is

unknown, refers to “PAYMENTS TO THE BANK BRANCH” and “PAYMENTS

WITH DEBITS TO THE ACCOUNT”, not house expenses of the Movant’s family as

affirmed by the Federal Attorney’s Office.

It is already clear that various withdrawals of money from the

couple’s account, evidently also intended to payments of house expenses of the family,

WHICH ARE NOT INCLUDED IN SAID SPREADSHEET, since as already

explained, it refers solely to “Payments to the bank branch” and “Payments with

debits to the account”, which is not the case of the rent of apartment 121.

Moreover, the Federal Attorney’s Office not even had the

concern in its analyses to cross-check the amounts in said spreadsheet with the ones in




1606Centro| 20010-904

Tel.: 55 21 3852-8280



Tel./Fax: 55 61 3326-990


18


the reports from the breach of bank secrecy, to minimally assure the reliability of the

spreadsheet.

Once this cross-check is done, it is possible to conclude that the

spreadsheet is worthless, because its values do not correspond entirely to those in the

bank statements.

To avoid any doubts, a comparative is presented below, where the

grey lines are the amounts entered into the spreadsheet, while the others are those

located or not in the bank statements.




1606Centro| 20010-904

Tel.: 55 21 3852-8280



Tel./Fax: 55 61 3326-990


19


DIA DESTINO VALOR JUL-PG AGO-PG SET-PG OUT-PG NOV-PG DEZ-PG1 Cond. Hill House - Apto.121 1.154,00R$ 1.100,00R$ 1.100,00R$ 1.100,00R$ 1.100,00R$ 1.100,00R$ 1.000,00R$

Valor conforme lançamento no extrato R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00 1.108,66R$ 1.073,16R$ 1.123,66R$ Data do lançamento no extrato não localizado não localizado não localizado 03.10.2011 01.11.2011 01.12.2011

Banco, Agencia e conta não identificado no banco

não identificado no banco


Bradesco, Ag 3246, conta 2166879



1 Cond. Hill House - Apto.122 1.100,00R$ 1.100,00R$ 1.100,00R$ 1.100,00R$ 1.100,00R$ 1.100,00R$ 1.000,00R$ Valor conforme lançamento no extrato R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00 1.108,66R$ 1.073,16R$ 1.123,66R$ Data do lançamento no extrato não localizado não localizado não localizado 03.10.2011 01.11.2011 01.12.2011







1 Cond.Kentucky -Apto.102 450,00R$ 450,00R$ 450,00R$ 450,00R$ 450,00R$ 450,00R$ 450,00R$ Valor conforme lançamento no extrato R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00 461,70R$ 431,70R$ 431,70R$ Data do lançamento no extrato não localizado não localizado não localizado 03.10.2011 01.11.2011 01.12.2011







1 Athrium Pedras 1.810,07R$ Boleto 1.810,07R$ 1.810,07R$ 1.810,07R$ Valor conforme lançamento no extrato R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00 1.810,07R$ 1.810,07R$ R$ 0,00Data do lançamento no extrato não localizado não localizado não localizado 03.10.2011 01.11.2011 não localizado







3 Eletropaulo - Apto.121 200,00R$ 200,00R$ 200,00R$ 200,00R$ 200,00R$ 200,00R$ 150,00R$ Valor conforme lançamento no extrato R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00 62,98R$ 52,38R$ 62,03R$ Data do lançamento no extrato não localizado não localizado não localizado 06.10.2011 08.11.2011 07.12.2011







3 Valor conforme lançamento no extrato 250,00R$ 250,00R$ 250,00R$ 250,00R$ 250,00R$ 250,00R$ 250,00R$ Efetivavente pago conforme extrato R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00 250,72R$ 248,40R$ 255,74R$ Data do lançamento no extrato não localizado não localizado não localizado 06.10.2011 08.11.2011 07.12.2011







10 Deb.Bradesco Ag.3246-8 ct.216.687-9 (SEGURO) 2.480,00R$ RENOVAÇÃO AGOSTO 620,00R$ 620,00R$ 620,00R$ 620,00R$ Valor conforme lançamento no extrato R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00 621,60R$ 621,60R$ 621,60R$ 621,60R$ Data do lançamento no extrato não localizado não localizado 12.09.2011 10.10.2011 10.11.2011 12.12.2011

Banco, Agencia e conta Valor não identificado no banco

Valor não identificado no

bancoBradesco, Ag 3246,

conta 2166879Bradesco, Ag 3246,

conta 2166879Bradesco, Ag 3246,

conta 2166879Bradesco, Ag 3246, conta 2166879

10 Convenio Sul América 3.166,00R$ 2.854,57R$ 2.854,57R$ 2.854,57R$ 2.854,57R$ 2.854,57R$ 3.166,00R$ Valor conforme lançamento no extrato R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00 3.561,35R$ R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00Data do lançamento no extrato não localizado não localizado 14.09.2011 não localizado não localizado não localizadoBanco, Agencia e conta não identificado no

banconão identificado no

bancoItau, Ag 17, conta

119132não identificado no


banconão identificado

no banco10 Sandro-Brades.Ag.3246-Cont.131529-3-SKY 360,00R$ 360,00R$ 360,00R$ 360,00R$ 360,00R$ 360,00R$ 360,00R$

Valor conforme lançamento no extrato R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00 360,00R$ 360,00R$ 360,00R$ Data do lançamento no extrato não localizado não localizado não localizado 10.10.2011 10.11.2011 12.12.2011




Bradesco Ag 3246, conta

2166879


2166879


216687914 IPTU - Ed.Kentucky-Apto.92 58,91R$ 58,91R$ 58,91R$ 58,91R$ 58,91R$ 58,91R$ 58,91R$

Valor conforme lançamento no extrato R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00Data do lançamento no extrato não localizado não localizado não localizado não localizado não localizado não localizadoBanco, Agencia e conta não identificado no






no banco14 Eletropaulo - Sitio 20,00R$ 20,00R$ 20,00R$ 20,00R$ 20,00R$ 20,00R$ 20,00R$







no banco14 Ultragaz - Apto. 122 20,00R$ 20,00R$ 20,00R$ 20,00R$ 20,00R$ 20,00R$ 20,00R$







no banco14 Net-Internet- Sandro 130,00R$ 130,00R$ 130,00R$ 130,00R$ 130,00R$







no banco21 IPTU - Hill House -Apto.121 216,13R$ 216,13R$ 216,13R$ 216,13R$ 216,13R$ 216,13R$ 216,13R$

Valor conforme lançamento no extrato R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00 R$ 216,13 R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00Data do lançamento no extrato não localizado não localizado 21.09.2011 não localizado não localizado não localizadoBanco, Agencia e conta não identificado no



conta 2166879não identificado no



no banco21 IPTU - Hill House -Apto.122 216,13R$ 216,13R$ 216,13R$ 216,13R$ 216,13R$ 216,13R$ 216,13R$

Valor conforme lançamento no extrato R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00 R$ 216,13 R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00Data do lançamento no extrato não localizado não localizado 21.09.2011 não localizado não localizado não localizadoBanco, Agencia e conta não identificado no



conta 2166879não identificado no



no banco21 Ed.Kentucky-Apto.92- Iluminação Publica 6,23R$ 6,23R$ 6,23R$ 6,23R$ 6,23R$ 6,23R$ 6,23R$

IPTU - Ed.Kentucky-Apto.102L.Claudio-Bradesco.Ag.3246-8/Cont.401-4(Faculd-SKY) Marlene-BB-Ag.1894-5-Cont.40.000-9Valor conforme lançamento no extrato R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00 R$ 6,23 R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00 R$ 0,00Data do lançamento no extrato não localizado não localizado 21.09.2011 não localizado não localizado não localizadoBanco, Agencia e conta

TOTAL 11.637,47R$ 6.851,97R$ 6.851,97R$ 9.412,04R$ 9.412,04R$ 9.412,04R$ 7.663,40R$

DIA DESTINO VALOR JUL-PG AGO-PG SET-PG OUT-PG NOV-PG DEZ-PG21 Porto Seguro(ITAU)Ag.0017 -conta 11913-2 190,00R$ OK OK OK

Valor conforme lançamento no extrato 186,03R$ 198,15R$ 198,15R$ R$ 0,00 198,15R$ 198,15R$ Data do lançamento no extrato 06.07.2011 08.08.2011 06.09.2011 08.11.2011 06.12.2011

Banco, Agencia e conta

21 Telef.- 4334-1717(ITAU)Ag.0017 -conta 11913-2 100,00R$ OK OK OKValor conforme lançamento no extrato 82,21R$ 84,78R$ R$ 0,00 92,83R$ 92,55R$ 119,25R$ Data do lançamento no extrato 21.07.2011 22.08.2011 21.10.2011 21.11.2011 21.12.2011






TOTAL 590,00R$

CONTAS MENSAIS 2º Sem. 2011PAGAMENTOS EM AGENCIA BANCÁRIA




1606Centro| 20010-904

Tel.: 55 21 3852-8280



Tel./Fax: 55 61 3326-990


20


In other words, said spreadsheet does not reflect the real facts

regarding the “PAYMENTS TO THE BANK BRANCH” and “PAYMENTS WITH

DEBITS TO THE ACCOUNT”, which it supposedly intends on presenting.

Consequently, it cannot be “proof” that the rental fees were not

paid.

As it can be seen, the version told by the Federal Attorney’s

Office does not resist minimally if confronted with objective elements on record.

One cannot change this reality through testimonies.

On that account, and considering that the Federal Attorney’s

Office failed to comply with this Court’s order to indicate the parol evidence requested

previously, this plea must be annulled and denied due to its lack of grounds.

– IV –

REQUESTS

In view of all the foregoing, we request:

(1) That the request made by the Federal Attorney’s Office for

producing parol evidence is denied, as it is extemporaneous – for

trying to reopen the evidentiary stage – and because it is not

suitable in accordance with the procedure set out in law;




1606Centro| 20010-904

Tel.: 55 21 3852-8280



Tel./Fax: 55 61 3326-990


21


(2) In view of the inaction of the Federal Attorney’s Office,

we request the preclusion of the right to indicate the modality of

expert analysis intended, as allowed in Event 17, with the

termination of this Forgery plea, which must be denied due to its

lack of grounds.

Grant is requested.

From São Paulo (SP) to Curitiba (PR), on November 10, 2017.

CRISTIANO ZANIN MARTINSOAB/SP 172.730

VALESKA TEIXEIRA Z. MARTINSOAB/SP 153.720

KAÍQUE RODRIGUES DE ALMEIDAOAB/SP 396.470

PEDRO H. VIANA MARTINEZOAB/SP 374.207




1606Centro| 20010-904

Tel.: 55 21 3852-8280



Tel./Fax: 55 61 3326-990


22


web viewtems i and: ii : of : a: ... complaint grounded in police investigation, ... therefore,...

Documents