Moro’s trial leaves security expenses open – 04/14/2024 – Power

Although it was not the central point of the trial in the TRE (Regional Electoral Court) of Paraná regarding senator Sergio Moro (União Brasil), the use of public resources managed by parties to pay for the personal security of members was a point contested by court judges region throughout their votes.

Moro became the target of a lawsuit in the TRE, brought by the PT and the PL, for alleged abuse of economic power in the pre-campaign period. The thesis was rejected at the end of the trial, on Tuesday (9), by a score of 5 to 2. The two parties announced that they will appeal to the TSE (Superior Electoral Court).

In the process that concluded last week, the core of the discussion was whether or not security expenses were related to the 2022 election and whether or not they could be included in the list of Moro’s pre-campaign expenses, for analysis of possible excessive spending of party funds during that period.

But, in parallel to this, even judges with dissenting votes noted during their arguments that expenses for personal security could not be paid with public resources received by the parties —via party or electoral funds—, indicating that this could constitute illegality.

The matter may be debated again in the TSE trial, which does not yet have a date.

When contacted, the parties União Brasil and Podemos, which hosted Moro at the time, argued that there was no irregularity in security spending. “The party’s accounts are absolutely compatible with current legislation”, said the Union, in a note.

Podemos argues that there are precedents for the use of public resources in cases where the member is a public figure and the target of threats. For the same reason, Moro’s lawyer, Gustavo Guedes, had already stated that he also considers regular use.

In his vote, the case’s rapporteur, Luciano Carrasco Falavinha, understood that security expenses should not be included in the sum of Moro’s pre-campaign expenses. “I am not unaware that the electoral law does not provide for the payment of private security expenses as funds authorized by the party fund,” he noted.

Falavinha also cited a case analyzed by the TRE of the Federal District, at the end of 2022, in which the accountability of an elected candidate was approved with reservations due to the use of party funds for security payments, among other reasons. The decision was to reimburse the treasury for the amounts spent.

On the other hand, the rapporteur also cited a precedent favorable to the use of funds for security. He refers to a decision by the TSE at the end of 2023, in which security expenses were considered regular in the accountability of PSOL, the acronym of Rio de Janeiro councilor Marielle Franco, murdered in 2018 along with driver Anderson Gomes. In the TSE trial, however, the issue of gender violence was highlighted.

Voting against Moro in the Paraná court, judge Julio Jacob Junior assessed that the exception applied to PSOL would not extend to the senator’s case and was more emphatic in pointing out the problem.

Jacob stated that spending on personal security financed with public money is considered “inappropriate for the entire list of candidates”. “Judgments like this can be found in accounts across the country and the few exceptions to this rule, when admitted, were aimed at protecting women against gender-based violence,” said Jacob.

The judge also drew attention to the fact that Moro’s campaign accounts apparently exchanged spending on “security and transportation” for spending on “transportation”, only.

“Added to this is the picturesque verification brought by the evidence in the case, in the sense that, deliberately, the expenses with security and transport were described in the campaign accounts as eminently transport expenses, while, in the issuance of the invoices throughout the pre-campaign period, the term security, which in fact is the main object of the contract, was highlighted”, said the judge.

“What seems like a simple exchange of expressions for the same service has a distinct relevance for the Electoral Court. This is because among the expenses that can be considered in the list of electoral campaign expenses, security expenses are not foreseen”, he continued.

When contacted, Moro’s defense said they would not comment on “isolated excerpts from the votes”.

Unlike the rapporteur, Jacob also defended that security spending be included in Moro’s pre-campaign sum. He understands that, as hiring security was a requirement imposed by Moro at the beginning of his pre-candidacy, the expense would be directly related to the 2022 election.

“What for the defense is treated as an electoral irrelevant and for the former judge an affront to his and his family’s physical integrity, for the citizen represented an expenditure of public money in the order of more than half a million reais (R$ 591,181.91)”, he stated.

For Falavinha, the need to hire personal security services and armed escort “is understandable”, as Moro and his family were targets of threats from factions.

He also considers it “evident that hiring personal security is not capable of promoting the candidacy and attracting votes.” “On the contrary, it could even represent an obstacle to approaching the electorate”, said the rapporteur, in line with the argument presented by Moro’s defense.

Lawyer Waldir Franco Felix Junior, who works in electoral law, cites the PSOL precedent and states that there is “no obstacle to the use of party funds to spend on the security of candidates or even pre-candidates”.

He adds, however, that the use of money must be justified, as a “credible threat”, for example.

Lawyer Paulo Ferraz, member of Abradep (Brazilian Academy of Electoral and Political Law), defends the regularity of spending based on article 44 of the Political Parties Law, which defines where money from the party fund can be applied. Ferraz mentions that the use for “paying personnel, in any capacity” is permitted and that this section of the law would cover security expenses.

“It must be highlighted that the party fund is public money and, therefore, supervision must be much more thorough.”