It was clear in the testimonies given today (06/05) by the former President of the CNO’s Board of Directors, Emilio Odebrecht, and the executives Alexandrino Alencar and João Alberto Louveira to the judge of the 13th Federal Criminal Court of Curitiba that the Lula Institute has never requested or received the ownership of the property located at 178, Rua Haberbeck Brandão, in São Paulo (SP). The hearing concerns the Criminal Proceeding No. 5063130-17.2016.4.04.7000.
Louveira, the only one to participate in the property’s purchase process, testified under oath and declared that Odebrecht Realizações identified a business opportunity in potentially selling or renting the property to Lula Institute. He confirmed that, after the management of the Institute visited the place, the purchase did not happen.
Louveira explained the whole commercial and private logic that guided the operation of the companies involved, which had no relation with the eight contracts mentioned in the complaint or with any resource considered unlawful or deriving from Petrobras.
Emílio Odebrecht made it clear that he has always had a “ceremonial relationship” with Lula and that he has never talked to the former President about amounts. He said the conversations were institutional and related to the sector’s interests. He confirmed that his performance concerning the Lula Institute followed the same pattern as practiced by former Presidents, like Fernando Henrique Cardoso, for making the successes of the respective administrations known.
Alencar made it clear that he tried to assist in the search of a property for Lula Institute, but was not successful because the institute did not show any interest in his supposed suggestions.
The testimonies given prove, once more, the unrealistic character of the accusation, since the Federal Attorney’s Office is trying to falsely assign to Lula or a person related to him a property which he has never requested or received.
The hearing was scheduled by incentive of the exploration of opinion and value judgement from the testimonies, making it inevitable to the defense to remind the judge of the legal prohibition of such conduct, provided in Article 212 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the absence of any evidence about the accusation in the complaint, the Federal Attorney’s Office resorted to questions which were unrelated to the criminal proceeding based on documents connected to the plea bargains, of which the defense was only informed in late morning. Therefore, it would be impossible to analyze them before the testimonies heard in the afternoon started. There was the pursuit of a media spectacle that was clearly harmful to the defense, whose request to suspend the hearing made to the Regional Federal Court of the 4th Region was denied even before the end of the morning.
Cristiano Zanin Martins