Toucano de SP is accused of cracking and multiplied equity – 04/28/2023 – Power

State deputy Rogério Nogueira (PSDB), member of the board of Alesp (São Paulo Legislative Assembly), became a defendant on charges of embezzlement, money laundering and criminal organization.

The Public Prosecutor’s Office claims that he used advisors’ salaries to pay personal expenses from 2009 to 2019, among other points, with a deviation of more than R$ 4 million. The practice is popularly known as “rachadinha”.

The declarations of assets presented to the Electoral Justice in 2010 and 2022 show the deputy’s asset growth. In the period, he more than tripled his assets, which exceeded R$ 8 million.

wanted by Sheethe claimed to be innocent.

Nogueira has one of the main positions in the São Paulo Assembly, that of second secretary. According to the Alesp portal, this sector commanded by the parliamentarian has 67 servants today.

Champion in motorcycling, he was elected deputy for the first time in 2002, with Indaiatuba (103 kilometers from the capital of São Paulo) as his electoral base.

The deputy became a defendant this month, after the Special Body of the Court of Justice accepted a complaint against him. On the occasion, the secrecy of the case was also dropped, dismembered in relation to other 25 servants and former servants, who do not have a special jurisdiction.

According to the indictment, part of the amounts were withdrawn and given to an employee, “in order to hide and disguise their nature, origin, location, disposition, movement and ownership”.

Afterwards, according to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the money was used to pay off “the deputy’s personal expenses, in accordance with the order in which obligations are due, so that, in the same way, the dirty money passed on was reinserted into the economic and financial system with an aspect of lawfulness, by means of integration to the parliamentary estate”.

The piece also cites values ​​passed on to the account of some trusted servants, which were used to pay bills or form a cashier to settle future personal expenses of the parliamentarian.

“Deputy Rogério N., the biggest beneficiary of the criminal scheme, headed the criminal organization, occupying a commanding position, since he defined who would be nominated for appointment, scaled how much of the remuneration would be passed on to him, elected the destination of misappropriated amounts and determined when the nominee would leave the criminal organization, defining the moment of his exoneration”, says the indictment.

The Public Prosecutor’s Office says that the deputy would have agreed with some of the defendants “considerable portions of the respective remunerations – in some cases even the entirety”.

Still according to the piece, part of the servers did not perform the functions for which they were hired, “so that those who did not pass on the entirety of the earned values ​​also obtained illicit advantages”.

The indictment also states that there was a diversion of funds through the issuing of false receipts and invoices by businessmen who simulated the provision of services.

“The amounts attributed to the simulated expense were refunded and diverted to the benefit of Deputy Rogério N”, says the complaint.

The Public Prosecutor accuses Rogério Nogueira of integrating the values ​​into the assets.

Calculation made by Sheet together with the accountability of the deputy to the Electoral Justice, it shows the multiplication of his assets in the last decade.

In corrected values, he declared R$ 2.6 million in 2010. In the last elections, he declared R$ 8.2 million, which includes an apartment worth R$ 1.7 million in Santana de Parnaíba (Grande SP), shares in companies and land.

According to the lawsuit, the deputy even deposited in court an amount equivalent to the deviation pointed out by the Public Ministry and pleaded for an agreement of non-criminal prosecution. However, the requirements for this would not have been met, since the deputy pleads not guilty and there was no confession.

The rapporteur of the action, Judge Costabile e Solimene, points out in his vote, however, that receiving the complaint requires “only the examination of the formal validity of the piece and the verification of the presence of sufficient evidence of authorship and materiality”.

The rapporteur’s vote mentions the description of evidence of different types and sources and the indication of indicators of materiality and authorship, so that, in formal terms, “there is no reason to reject the complaint”.

Deputy says he is innocent and was not denounced by officials

Nogueira claims innocence in the process and says he is at the disposal of Justice.

“There is no complaint from any employee against him, and he is confident that everything will be clarified,” said the representative’s advisory, in a note.

The deputy’s defense considered it “absurd” to call the workers a criminal organization, since “for years they donated hard to the work performed, being inadmissible to criminalize since it is uncontroversial that their work was carried out”.

On the issue of equity evolution, the deputy stated that “long before entering politics, he was already a businessman and investor, and it is public knowledge that parliamentary activity is not and has never been his only professional activity”.

In arguing that there would be no damage to the public coffers cited by the prosecution, Nogueira’s lawyer, Ricardo Sayeg, stated in the process that to “honor his history” the parliamentarian “gathered all his savings and even contracted a bank loan of more than Rs. $3 million” still at the investigation stage. Subsequently, he made a supplementary court deposit of R$529,000.

The defense also stated that there would be a “persecution by the MP [Ministério Público] against the family of the accused”.

The deputy’s brother, the former mayor of Indaiatuba Reinaldo Nogueira, has already been arrested and the target of corruption investigations. According to the deputy’s defense, Reinaldo Nogueira was also the target of persecution and the lawsuits against him cited in the parliamentary investigation ended with acquittal.

In the note to Sheetthe parliamentarian pointed out that legally cases involving his brother are in no way related to the process to which he responds and that, in the case of the relative, “the decisions of the first instance have been reversed in his favor, in the other instances”.