Former councilor Veronica Costa, the Blonde Mother of Funk, is arrested after 15 years of judicial soap opera

The arrest of former councilor Veronica Costa, the Blonde Mother of Funk, ends a judicial soap opera that lasted 15 years and ended up in the Federal Supreme Court (STF), after different appeals, and with an increase in the sentence in the middle of the process.

During this time, Veronica never went to jail for the crime — until this Thursday (24). Polinter agents captured her, late at night, in the Serrana Region, alongside 3 other convicts: her brothers, Bruno and Tatiane, and her brother-in-law, who is also called Bruno.

According to the police, the funk singer changed cars 4 times on the journey between Rio de Janeiro and the farm in Araras, in Petrópolis, to try to outwit the authorities.

"I'm not a criminal, a criminal or a murderer. Here is a woman who had a gun pointed at her head and who was the victim of an error by the Judiciary", he declared, upon arriving at the Police City.

Why had Veronica Costa never been arrested?

Despite the convictions, Veronica Costa responded to the case freely throughout the entire process.

According to the records, she was not ordered into preventive detention during the investigation and the procedural investigation phase.

After her conviction, she was also allowed to appeal in freedom while there were still pending appeals in higher courts.

The situation only changed after the final judgment, when all possibilities for appeal were exhausted.

This month, the Court issued the arrest warrant to serve the sentence of 10 years and 8 months in a closed regime.

g1 now explains the timeline of the process.

February 22, 2011: complaint is opened

The case began on February 22, 2011, after a complaint filed with the police by the businesswoman's then husband, Márcio Costa. He stated that he had been held in prison and tortured inside the couple's residence since the previous day.

In his statement to the police, Márcio stated that he was gagged and tied to the bed in his own room and that the attacks lasted 20 hours. The ex-husband also said that the businesswoman and relatives sprayed insecticide on his face and poured gasoline on his body, threatening to burn him alive.

On March 28, 2011, a police investigation was launched that investigated Márcio's complaints. In the same year, the criminal action was distributed to the 16th Criminal Court of the Capital, the 1st judicial instance.

2012 to 2018: Court of Justice

During the action, Veronica Costa was elected councilor of Rio de Janeiro. Because of the position, the case left the 16th Criminal Court of the Capital and began to be processed originally at the Court of Justice of Rio de Janeiro (TJRJ), due to the jurisdiction of the prerogative of function.

In April 2014, the TJRJ received the complaint and ordered the process to continue.

The situation changed in 2018, when the STF restricted the application of the forum by function prerogative. With the new guidance, the Court of Justice understood that the case should return to the first instance.

In September of that year, the case returned to the 16th Criminal Court.

2019: the 1st conviction

On March 29, 2019, the 16th Criminal Court sentenced Veronica Costa to 5 years and 10 months in prison, under an initial semi-open regime.

The sentence also determined the loss of her councilor mandate — which was not accepted by the Rio de Janeiro City Council.

The other defendants were sentenced to 5 years and 3 months in prison.

2020: appeals reach the Court

After the sentence, both the Public Ministry of Rio de Janeiro (MPRJ) and the defense appealed the decision.

The prosecution wanted a bigger sentence, and Veronica's lawyers wanted the case to be annulled.

The appeals began to be analyzed by the 2nd instance of Rio de Janeiro's Justice, in the 2nd Criminal Chamber of the TJRJ.

2021: penalty is extended

In November 2021, the 2nd Criminal Chamber of the TJRJ judged the appeals. The judges rejected the defense's arguments and accepted MPRJ's appeal to increase the penalties.

As a result, Veronica Costa was sentenced to 10 years and 8 months in prison, initially under a closed regime. The other co-defendants had sentences set at 10 years in prison.

2022 and 2023: New features are rejected

The defense filed a motion for clarification and tried to reverse the decision within the TJRJ itself.

In April 2023, the 2nd Criminal Chamber rejected the appeals and fully maintained the conviction set in the 2nd instance.

2024 and 2025: case reaches the STJ

After the defeat at the TJRJ, the defense appealed to the Superior Court of Justice (STJ).

Among the arguments presented were requests for the annulment of the case, questions about the increase in the sentence and allegations related to the jurisdiction of the Court to judge the case.

The STJ rejected the appeals and upheld the conviction.

2025 and 2026: last appeals at the STF

The case reached the Federal Supreme Court through an extraordinary appeal filed by the defense.

Among the theses taken to the Court were questions about the competence of the common justice system to judge the case and allegations of procedural nullities.

In December 2025, the rapporteur, minister Flávio Dino, denied the appeal.

The defense filed a regulatory appeal, which was rejected in February by the 1st Panel of the STF.

The lawyers then filed a motion for clarification, which was denied by the 1st Panel in April and May.

The certificate attesting to the final judgment of the conviction was issued by the Judicial Secretariat of the STF dated May 23, 2026.

2026: return to the 1st instance

After the appeal phase ended in Brasília, the files were transferred from the STF to the TJRJ so that the criminal execution court could carry out the sentence.

The process of sending and returning the files to the court of origin was completed on September 14, 2026.

Only after receipt and formal assessment of the case in the first instance was the competent judge able to issue the arrest warrant to serve the sentence of 10 years and 8 months.

What did the defense claim?

the understanding that the case should be judged by the Electoral Court, and not by the common court, as in theory it is a politically motivated crime;

allegations of procedural nullities during the course of the action;

questions about the increase in the sentence determined by the TJRJ;

criticism of the way the evidence was analyzed;

constitutional discussions presented to the STF.

Both the STJ and the STF rejected the requests presented.