Chief prosecutor lets Palocci off the hook in the case of violation of gardener’s bank secrecy

Brazil’s chief prosecutor, Roberto Gurgel, the head of the Procuradoria-Geral da República (“PGR”) has shelved a new attempt to charge the former minister of Finance (“Fazenda”) and, now, former Chief of Staff (ministro-chefe da Casa Civil”), Antonio Palocci, with violating the bank account of a gardener (“quebra do sigilo bancário”) who reported that the minister lied when he said he had never been to a house of ill repute where lobbyists gathered. This happened in March 2006 and as a result of the scandal, Palocci resigned as minister of Finance at that time.

The new charges (“denúncia”), filed by the president of the political party, PPS, Roberto Freire, was based on an article in the newspaper, Folha de S. Paulo, which reported that in a lawsuit the gardener filed against the bank where his account was (“Caixa Econômica Federal”) it was discovered that the order to violate the account did in fact come from the office of the then minister of Finance, Antonio Palocci. The Freire lawsuit calls this new evidence showing that Palocci was in fact guilty.

However, Gurgel ruled that the Freire lawsuit cannot prosper because it does not fulfill a mandatory requirement if the case is to be opened again: present a new fact. Gurgel points out that his organization, the PGR, filed a lawsuit against Palocci in 2008 for violation of bank secrecy laws (The case was in fact tried before the Supreme Court because as a minister of state at the time of the crime Palocci had privileged venue). The Supreme Court found Palocci innocent for lack of evidence.

Gurgel says that as the Freire lawsuit makes the same accusation against Palocci (violating bank secrecy), it is therefore not a new fact.. In his own words, Gurgel ruled: “In this context, the defense presented by the Caixa Econômica Federal in the suit for indemnity [by the gardener] saying, generically, that the order for the violation came from the office of the then minister Antonio Palocci, is not a new fact, exactly because it is the same fact that was examined [by the Supreme Court] and rejected.”