The Federal Attorney’s Office abused of the right to prosecute and intensified the
practice of “lawfare” against Lula when it presented its Closing Arguments today
(01/11) in the Motion for Impeachment of Document No. 5043015-38.2017.4.04.7000
requesting the confirmation that the receipts were forged in spite of the proof that the
documents are authentic and legitimate.

During Lula’s interrogation on 09/13/2017, the Federal Attorney’s Office, as well as
Judge Sérgio Moro, urged the former President to present the rental receipts related to
the lease contract signed by Mrs. Marisa da Silva. They argued that the presentation of
the receipts was essential to the acknowledgment of Lula’s innocence, although the
formal charges are related to the ownership of the leased property and to the source of
the funds used for its purchase.

The receipts thereupon were presented and included the declaration of the full rental
payments from 2011 and 2015. Instead of acknowledging the charge’s invalidity, the
prosecutors unduly placed the receipt’s authenticity under suspicion. Afterward, in view
of the evidence that the receipts have been really signed by the property’s owner, the
prosecutors gave up requesting an expert analysis of the documents and started to argue
that they were “ideologically false”, because, according to the version presented, the
rentals were allegedly not paid. The charges are untruthful and misplaced. The
arguments of the Federal Attorney’s Office are expressly invalid, because:

(i) Glaucos da Costamarques acknowledged that he is the owner of the
apartment and that he purchased another estate using his own funds, and not

with amounts derived from Petrobras contracts, as it is indicated in the
complaint;

(ii) Costamarques clarified to the State Revenues Office and the Federal Police
in 2016 that he received the rental payments from 2011 and 2015 in cash;

(iii) Costamarques has never verified any delay in the rental payments during his
communication with Mrs. Marisa da Silva, the lessee;

(iv) The disclosure of Costamarques’s bank secrecy showed that from 2011 and
2015 he made transactions of an amount totaling approximately 1.4 million;

(v) Costamarques has never explained the source of such amounts in his
accounts, which were compatible with the rentals received, totaling around
R$ 188 thousand at the time;

(vi) The spurious document was supposedly seized at former President Lula’s
residence, glorified by the prosecution, it was purportedly related to
payments made “at a bank agency” or through “debit”, bearing no indication
of payments made in cash;

(vii) This same spurious document does not match the reality of the payments
made by Mrs. Marisa da Silva, according to the bank statements inserted in
the record, what makes clear its uselessness as previously indicated by the
defense on 11/10/2017.

Glaucos da Costamarques is a co-defendant in the proceeding. He gave a testimony
without being under oath, as well as Leo Pinheiro in the triplex case. The Federal
Attorney’s Office is aiming at attributing probative value to Costamarques’s
declarations about the rentals, but at the same time, it disregards his claims about being
the property’s owner and not Lula’s straw man.

With such an attitude, the Federal Attorney’s Office shows it does not have a criterion
for selecting evidence. It considers legitimate only that which is against Lula’s defense.
It’s the same logic used to reject the testimony of former Odebrecht lawyer Rodrigo
Tacla Durán.

Lula has not committed any unlawful act, before, during or after he was in office as the
President of Brazil.

Cristiano Zanin Martins

Former President Lula’s attorney