PL approved that punishes discrimination against politicians divides supporters

The Chamber of Deputies approved, this Wednesday (14), Bill 2,720/23, which punishes banks for discriminatory acts against politicians in opening accounts and other financial activities. In the votes, attention was drawn to the lack of ideological cohesion of the groups that voted against and in favor.

Among the PL deputies, for example, 44 were against and 37 were in favor of the proposal. Politicians from completely opposite ideological parties, such as Novo, from the liberal right, and PSOL and PCdoB, from the extreme left, unanimously voted against the proposal; the PT, which was the party with the most deputies in favor of the project – 43 –, also had 11 votes against it.

The approved substitute significantly changed the initial proposal, which restricted criticism against “politically exposed persons” and punished companies that discriminated against this category in their selection processes. Even so, some parliamentarians who voted in favor of the project were pressured by users on social networks.

Deputy Filipe Barros (PL-PR), for example, responded to a user who accused him of voting “in favor of a project that criminalizes those who curse politicians”. “With all due respect, but you’re uninformed,” said Barros. “The text you posted was not even voted”.

Differences between co-religionists occurred for several reasons. Some right-wing parliamentarians fear, for example, that their family members will have difficulties opening bank accounts due to discrimination, and for that reason they voted in favour; others considered that the project, even in its new version, is not necessary or was prepared in a hurry, and for this reason they were against it.

In addition to the different interpretations that each had on the text itself, the pressure from the President of the House, Arthur Lira (PP-AL), for the approval of the project had an impact on the number of deputies who voted in favor, according to a source from the Chamber .

For Janaina Paschoal, PhD in Criminal Law and former state deputy in São Paulo, the issue should be better discussed before Congress creates new types of crimes. “These difficulties imposed on politicians, even those who have never had any problems with the law, come from regulations imposed on banks. Perhaps the discussion needed to go through this, before talking about creating crimes”, she says.

She also sees a wording problem in article 3, which says:

Crimes resulting from discrimination committed due to the condition of a politically exposed person, or a person who is responding to a preliminary investigation, detailed term, inquiry or any other investigative procedure for a criminal, civil or administrative offense, or of a person who appears as a defendant in an ongoing legal proceeding.

The criminal type – denying the opening of an account, the granting of credit or another banking service due to discrimination – is only defined in article 4, which, for Janaina, can cause confusion. “To avoid any doubts, I think that the Senate should trim the text further, if it decides to criminalize”, he says.

João Rezende, a criminal lawyer, also considers that the text could be improved. “There is a problem with the legislative drafting technique, because the conduct is already fully described in article 4. Article 3 is unnecessary and could be done in another way”, he says.

PL substitute inherited controversy from its original version

Although it excluded the most criticized points, the replacement inherited the controversy of the original project. Under the old proposal, any legitimate expression of opinion would run the risk of being criminalized.

Last week, the proposal was withdrawn from the agenda due to lack of consensus among the leaders. This Wednesday, with the withdrawal of articles on punishment of companies and critics of politicians, the urgent request was approved and, soon after, the bill’s substitute.

The author of the original proposal is the daughter of former deputy Eduardo Cunha (MDB-RJ), who was sentenced to more than 55 years in prison in three corruption cases. On the 29th of May, in the wake of the understanding that dismissed Lula for alleged incompetence of the Justice of Paraná, the Federal Supreme Court (STF) decided to annul a decision that had condemned Eduardo Cunha for receiving bribes in the scope of Lava investigations. Jet.

In justifying the project, Dani Cunha defends the principle of the presumption of innocence of politicians. “Discrimination practiced solely by virtue of political position or because it is a party to a lawsuit needs to be purged from our society, honoring the fundamental protections granted by the Carta Maior”, says an excerpt of the justification.