As attorneys of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Marisa Letícia Lula da Silva, we filed on this date (01/26/2017) with the 13th Federal Court of Curitiba, a defense regarding the Criminal Action No. 5063130-17.2016.4.04.7000, demonstrating that there is no minimum support to back the information against our client, which was filed by the Federal Attorney’s Office on 12/14/2016 and accepted by the Court on December 19th, based on the ownership of two properties – one located at Rua Haberbeck Brandão, No. 178 (in São Paulo) and Av. Francisco Prestes Maia, No. 1501 (in São Bernardo do Campo). This action derives from two investigative procedures (Police Investigation 290/2016 and 1034/2016) instituted by the Federal Police, on 3/15/2016.
Such Police Investigations proceeded in a concealed manner, without the knowledge of the defense, until November 29th, 2016, the date on which the police authority issued an official letter requesting clarifications from Lula on the issue. Forging a non-existent relationship with Operation Car Wash’s investigations, it was stated that the former President of the Republic have knowingly participated in the criminal enterprise that forged Petrobras’ bids through the payment of bribes distributed among politicians and their respective parties. The accusations are vague and generic and the accusation is downright speculative. In such artificial context, the Federal Attorney’s Office information accuses Lula of committing the crime of aggravated solicitation of bribery and money laundering, and Marisa Leticia of committing the crime of money laundering - assuming the existence of a “criminal organization”, a thesis that we vehemently repudiate.
The matter, which is pending before the Supreme Court, is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Attorney General and is still under investigation. The question is, then, how do the Car Wash Prosecutors accuse - with full “belief” - what is still being investigated by their highest ranking superior and which eventual grant of claim will be analyzed in the future by the Federal Supreme Court? How can the “belief” of the subscribers of the information affirm what is still being determined by a higher court? Regarding the accusations inherent to the criminal organization’s command, there have been much criticism and the Reporting Judge himself, Teori Zavascki, has already addressed the issue.
No internal or external control body - including audit firms, the Office of the Federal Controller General, the Federal Accounting Court, the Federal Police and the Federal Attorney’s Office – has produced any report or made public accusation regarding an alleged criminal organization. Lula reaffirms that he has never been aware of any corruption scheme installed in Petrobras, much less that he has received, as well as his wife, any undue advantage derived from financial contracts signed by the company - as well as both of them have never benefited from any of the two properties aforementioned. The defense confirms the veracity of previous quotes:
1. Property at Rua Haberbeck. It was offered to the Citizenship Institute, which preceded the Lula Institute, and there was no interest in its acquisition. The former president visited the place only once, together with the members of the Citizenship Institute’s Executive Board, at which time he declined the purchase. What happened to the property after that date does not have any relation to our clients. But the information states that the property “was received by the former President of the Republic LUIZ INÁCIO LULA DA SILVA on 09/29/2010” without indicating in which circumstances that supposedly occurred. The Lula Institute operates in the property that was purchased in 1990 by the Institute of Research and Studies of the Worker (IPET, acronym in Portuguese) and Lula has never had the ownership or used said property;
2. Apartment at Av. Francisco Prestes Maia – next to the one owned by Lula and his wife. It is intended to attribute to Lula the ownership of a property of which both he and his wife are tenants, as evidenced by the existence of a contract. The couple pays rent and the due taxes, configuring a strictly private agreement with no relation with the Operation Car Wash.
There is no factual / evidentiary basis to attribute the destination or hidden ownership of those properties - of alleged illicit origin - to Lula and Marisa Letícia. Not even the complaint was able to point out a single conduct practiced by the former President in relation to that issue. Thus, Lula cannot be criminally liable on the ground that he would be the hidden owner of the properties, as it constitutes objective criminal liability, extraneous to Criminal Law.
The prosecution of this case is worthy of the Guinness World Records, considering that the complaint was accepted on December 12th, by the 13th Federal Court Judge, resulted from a Police Investigation in which the former President and his attorney Roberto Teixeira - who always acted within the strict professional duty and with observance of the ethical duty inherent to the profession - had only two days to answer and in less than one working day they were already charged. The information was filed 3 working days later and received in 4 working days. Under the constitutional aegis, it is not possible for the procedure to be carried out occultly for more than eight months and to be completed one day after the suspect provided its clarifications! Where is the minimum respect for the fundamental guarantees of those under investigation? How to attribute impersonality to such investigation?
This disproportionate and growing eagerness to provide accusations is a proven tactic of lawfare, the reprehensible authoritarian expediency embodied in the use of law and legal procedures as a means of achieving political results. It is undeniable that part of the public officials involved in the Operation Car Wash started a real -and notorious- war against Lula and the political project he represents, using extrajudicial criminal prosecution and now criminal proceedings in judicium, to fight him and, more than that, to eliminate him from public life.
There was no unbiased investigation but a sequence of facts produced to support the filing of numerous frivolous and non-concrete proceedings against Lula with the sole purpose of preventing the free exercise of his political activities. Retaliation and revenge also guided this new action. In order to make the process less improbable and at the same time weaken the defense, they also inserted one of his attorneys.
The accusations, therefore, are not supported on a real basis. They are frivolous. They were built on fervent “convictions” of those who chose Lula as an enemy in a war scenario, under the canopy of apparent legitimacy conferred by criminal prosecution in court. We also emphasize that we do not recognize the jurisdiction and the impartiality of the judge of the 13th Federal Court of Curitiba, so we renew our jurisdictional plea and motion to recuse.
The document is available on www.averdadedelula.com.br
Cristiano Zanin Martins
