Minister Alexandre de Moraes, of the STF (Supreme Federal Court), asked that Minister André Mendonça be investigated for abuse of authority, administrative improbity and criminal responsibility in the handling of the case of Banco Master and INSS (National Social Security Institutes).
The order was signed as part of the fake news inquiry and forwarded to the president of the STF, Edson Fachin, for action. Moraes claims that Mendonça acted to direct the investigations, "with a breach of judicial impartiality and favoring certain political groups".
According to Moraes, the colleague irregularly handled plea bargains and targeted certain targets for the investigation "for personal and political reasons, including with the prior indication of precautionary measures" to be presented by the Federal Police.
These targets would be Moraes himself and the president of the Federal Senate, Davi Alcolumbre (União Brasil-AP).
The measure was taken by Moraes two days after Mendonça removed the confidentiality of a PF report that points to his colleague as the interlocutor of former banker Daniel Vorcaro, owner of Master. In the decision, Mendonça signaled that he will take the possibility of investigating Moraes to the plenary.
Sought after Moraes' request to Fachin, Mendonça has not yet responded.
Fachin decided to open a procedure to clarify the nullities alleged by the PGR (Attorney General's Office), asking everyone involved, including Moraes and Mendonça, to demonstrate within five working days.
According to Moraes, on Mendonça's part there are "increasing signs of bias in the conduct of judicial supervision, manifested in a thematic direction of progressive intensity regarding the determined investigative line", in addition to "a break in the chain of custody of the seized evidence".
Moraes stated that, during the investigation, Mendonça threatened to remove from office the director general of the PF, Andrei Rodrigues, and the attorney general of the Republic, Paulo Gonet — the latter due to "closeness to minister Gilmar Mendes which would make him untrustworthy".
To justify the decision within the scope of the fake news investigation, Moraes says that he found "the existence of fraudulent news, slanderous reports, threats and infractions that affect the honor and security of the Supreme Court, its members and family members".
The minister says that intelligence reports registered in the PF systems point to the false attribution of crimes in relation to Rodrigues, Gonet, Moraes and Gilmar, with quotes also to ministers Dias Toffoli, Luiz Fux and Kassio Nunes Marques.
Intelligence reports, according to Moraes, say that Mendonça had determined measures that harmed the chain of custody of evidence, trampling on the powers of the police authorities, which ended up generating asymmetrical treatment between those investigated, with varying deadlines depending on the target.
"The reporting court has been exercising powers typical of presiding over the investigation, and not of judicial supervision", says the PF report, citing as an example Mendonça's order to have access to the raw material of the investigation.
The Federal Police report used by the minister to support André Mendonça's investigation request for abuse of authority has no probative value, as written in the header of the document itself. The 50-page report does not have the signature of a responsible delegate. At the top of the document, the acronym for Dicor, Organized Crime Directorate, appears.
The PF concludes that the practical result of Mendonça's actions "is the judge's role as an investigator", as the minister was able to directly and unrestrictedly explore the entire collection of evidence, something that is not available, for example, to the defenses of those being investigated.
"The required format is, in itself, an indication: it is intended for consultation and content analysis", says the PF, signaling that from this point on, Mendonça could select, suppress or manipulate the documentation that supports the investigations.
Also according to the PF, the rapporteur of the Master and INSS cases would have made decisions based on materials that had not yet been analyzed or cross-referenced by investigators, which led to "unsupported categorical statements".
"The delegate's review is the stage in which the demonstrative chain is verified, conclusions not supported by the elements are ruled out and the degree of assertiveness is adjusted to the available ballast. Suppressing it causes the analyst's raw inference to enter the case file without a filter", concludes the PF.
