CNJ : Real Cases of Judgment Selling in Rio de Janeiro - Brazil

Conselho Nacional de Justiça against

#corruption

“Um Judiciário íntegro é primordial para a confiança nas instituições e para assegurar que todos, sem distinção, tenham acesso a uma Justiça legítima e imparcial. Não se trata de virtude. Acima de tudo, é uma exigência para que possamos cumprir nossos deveres com responsabilidade”, disse a ministra Maria Thereza, STJ.

Ela ainda destacou que a integridade judicial “reveste-se de requisito essencial para a promoção da igualdade, para garantir que leis sejam aplicadas de maneira consistente e isonômica e para assegurar a afirmação dos Direitos Humanos”.

Real Cases of Judgment Selling in Rio de Janeiro - Brazil

The phenomenon of selling judicial decisions in Rio de Janeiro has been the subject of numerous scandals and well-known legal proceedings.

 In 2009, the CNJ (National Justice Council) opened an administrative proceeding to investigate ties between then-Court of Justice of Rio de Janeiro (TJRJ) inspector Roberto Wider and businessman Eduardo Raschkovsky, who was accused of “using his influence with judges, especially Wider, to negotiate court rulings.” 

In the criminal sphere, Operation Hurricane (2007), conducted by the Federal Police, revealed a corruption scheme involving the illegal “jogo do bicho” gambling business in RJ: 24 people were arrested, including federal judges José Eduardo Carreira Alvim and José Ricardo Regueira (TRF-2), accused of negotiating rulings to release seized slot machines.

 These judges were initially convicted, but TRF-2 later acquitted them due to lack of conclusive evidence. 

Operation Hurricane generated dozens of indictments and arrests of gambling bosses, police officers, and other individuals, and also implicated retired STJ minister Paulo Medina and his lawyer brother.

More recently, Federal Police operations in the TJRJ have uncovered new cases. 

In 2019–2020, Operation Plantão executed arrest warrants against four individuals and carried out searches at 15 locations, under suspicion of judgment selling that allegedly benefited militias and other criminals in RJ.

 In April 2020, Operation Voto Vendido targeted Judge Mário Guimarães Neto (TJRJ); jewelry, artwork, and a safe containing R$50,000 were found in his car, indicating bribes received to favor public transportation companies. In a plea deal, former leaders of Fetranspor claimed to have paid around R$6 million in bribes to Guimarães for favorable rulings. 

Most recently, in March 2025, the STJ’s Special Court convicted three labor court judges from TRT-RJ in Operation Mais Valia (a corruption scheme linked to the Witzel administration) for receiving bribes in exchange for favorable decisions to social organizations and companies, with prison sentences ranging from 10 to 20 years. 

Media reports indicate that the illicit amounts reached approximately R$1.8 million.

In addition, STF Inquiry 2424 (2008) revealed an investigation into alleged judgment selling in TRF-2: those investigated included STJ minister Paulo Medina, his lawyer brother Virgílio Medina, Judge José Eduardo Carreira Alvim (TRF-2), Judge Ernesto Dória (TRT-15), and prosecutor João Sérgio Pereira (Federal Prosecutor’s Office).

 In 2023, TRF-2 acquitted Carreira Alvim due to lack of evidence, although he had been forcibly retired by the CNJ in 2010—a case described by the Council as “the most emblematic.”

 These episodes illustrate the recurrence of judgment selling allegations involving judges, lawyers, and businessmen in Rio de Janeiro, from electoral matters to criminal and labor disputes.

Official Investigations and Operations

Various oversight and enforcement bodies have been investigating these schemes. 

In 2009, National Justice Inspector Gilson Dipp initiated an administrative procedure following a news report alleging judgment selling in TJRJ. 

More recently, the CNJ ordered an extraordinary audit of the offices of seven appellate judges and one lower-court judge of the TJRJ (named in plea deals), based on allegations of favoritism toward bus companies in lawsuits.

 In 2021, this investigation (CNJ Ordinance No. 63/2021) was based on media reports and whistleblower accounts from Fetranspor, with an audit of the suspicious offices scheduled for August 2021.

The Federal Police launched criminal investigations.

 In Operation Plantão (phase 1 in Sept. 2019 and phase 2 in April 2020), the Federal Police executed arrest and search warrants authorized by the STJ in RJ and SC against those accused of negotiating court rulings in the TJRJ.

 Operation Voto Vendido (April 2020) focused on a corruption scheme involving public transport; in this case, authorized by STJ Minister Félix Fischer, cash and assets tied to judges suspected of taking bribes were seized.

 Ongoing investigations by the Federal Police (e.g., Operation Sisamnes in the STJ) and the Federal Prosecutor’s Office remain under seal, with findings pointing to money laundering networks used to hide bribes paid in exchange for judicial decisions.

In addition to criminal proceedings, there have been legislative and administrative investigations. 

In May 2025, the Senate discussed creating a Parliamentary Inquiry Commission (CPI) to investigate the commercialization of judicial decisions, including those involving STJ ministers, highlighting the gravity of the accusations. Internally, the CNJ and courts have tightened disciplinary oversight, with forced retirements in high-profile cases and reforms to oversight procedures.

Jurisprudence and Related Rulings

The higher courts have addressed topics related to judicial corruption.

 In a Habeas Corpus ruling by the STJ (2012), the 5th Panel upheld the validity of measures taken during Operation Hurricane, rejecting efforts to annul proceedings based on alleged irregularities in how cases were assigned. The court held that such irregularities could not undermine criminal investigations stemming from a police operation.

In a TRF-2 appeal (2015), the Federal Court reviewed evidence of crime in a judgment-selling scheme.

 It found that simple money transfers between law firms without formal contracts were “insufficient” to establish criminal origins of the funds. 

As a result, two lawyers previously convicted of money laundering (allegedly tied to judgment selling) were acquitted due to lack of solid proof of an illicit arrangement.

There are also precedents emphasizing judicial protections.

 In the TRF-2 inquiry into judgment selling brought to the STF in 2008, Justice Félix Fischer cited a Federal Prosecutor’s Office opinion stating that rulings are protected under Article 41 of the LOMAN: 

“except in cases of impropriety or excessive language, a judge cannot be punished or harmed [...] for the content of the decisions they issue.” 

This judicial immunity was invoked to dismiss investigations, showing that merely attributing bad faith to controversial rulings is not enough to constitute a crime.

 More recently, in a 2023 ruling, TRF-2 acquitted former judge Carreira Alvim of judgment-selling accusations, holding that intercepted communications and other evidence failed to unequivocally prove corruption.

 These precedents reflect the need for concrete proof of criminal conduct and highlight procedural safeguards that protect judicial independence.

Academic Discussions and Doctrine

Judicial corruption has been the subject of doctrinal studies and legal debates, though academic research on the issue remains limited. 

Specialized publications emphasize the atypical nature of such practices, often disguised under the legal appearance of rulings. 

For example, editorials and news analyses point out that “at least 14 courts” have been investigated for judgment selling in Brazil, underscoring the need for rigorous oversight. 

Legal essays recommend strengthening internal control mechanisms and judicial transparency, since prolonged investigations contribute to a perception of corporatism among judges.

In summary, the legal literature highlights the serious ethical implications of such allegations: violations of judicial impartiality undermine public trust in the justice system. Scholars advocate for improvements in oversight agencies (CNJ and court inspectorates) and greater administrative accountability, while preserving judicial independence.

 These reflections appear in dissertations and academic articles on Public Law and Political Science, which map cases of judges forced into retirement for misconduct (including federal and state courts, particularly in RJ) and discuss anti-corruption policies for the Judiciary.

Legal and Institutional Impacts

The judgment-selling cases in Rio de Janeiro have had significant consequences for the judicial system. Administratively, the CNJ has stepped up court oversight, conducting extraordinary audits and imposing forced retirements in emblematic cases.

 As a result, judges who were retired or suspended (even if later criminally acquitted) saw their reputations damaged and fueled debates over judicial ethics.

Politically, the allegations have shaken the Judiciary’s credibility. Legal professionals and public opinion criticized delays in case resolution and investigative gaps, fearing that prolonged proceedings could foster impunity. 

As Folha de S. Paulo noted, “the delay is unacceptable” and reinforces public perceptions of corporatism within the judiciary. This erosion of trust has spurred legislative proposals to increase transparency—for example, the Senate’s CPI initiative to clarify the scandal (focused on the STJ/Mato Grosso case but with national implications)—and discussions about reforming disciplinary rules (such as proposals to amend the LOMAN in some circles).

Practically, several affected cases remain pending in higher courts.

 The STJ itself has prioritized cases linked to judicial corruption, although many remain under seal.

 In response, the CNJ and other oversight bodies have sought to mitigate harm: halting dubious investigations, establishing audit protocols, and guiding judges on preventing conflicts of interest. These developments provoke institutional reflection: they underscore the need for strict controls (chamber audits, decision transparency) and encourage legal reforms to curb judicial misconduct.

Sources: Official reports and news articles from courts and legal outlets, including CNJ, Supreme Court and STJ, Federal Prosecutor’s Office/Federal Police, as well as O Globo, Folha de S.Paulo, and CNN Brasil.

Real Cases of Judgment Selling in Rio de Janeiro

The phenomenon of selling judicial decisions in Rio de Janeiro has been repeatedly exposed through operations and investigations targeting members of the judiciary, lawyers, and business owners. [1] [2]

[1] Veja, 'Desembargador é investigado por venda de sentenças', edição de abril de 2009.

[2] Conselho Nacional de Justiça (CNJ), Processo Administrativo Disciplinar aberto em 2009 contra o desembargador Roberto Wider.

Operation Hurricane (2007) by the Federal Police exposed a major corruption scheme involving illegal gambling and judicial decisions in favor of gambling lords. [1] [2]

[1] Inquérito 2424, Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), Relator: Min. Cezar Peluso.

[2] Polícia Federal, Relatório Final da Operação Furacão, 2007.

Operation Plantão (2019–2020) and Operation Voto Vendido (2020) revealed schemes where judges allegedly received bribes in exchange for favorable rulings. [1] [2] [3]

[1] Polícia Federal, Operação Plantão – RJ e SC – Relatórios de setembro de 2019 e abril de 2020.

[2] Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ), decisões do Min. Félix Fischer, 2020.

[3] Delação premiada dos ex-dirigentes da Fetranspor, conforme publicado em O Globo e CNN Brasil.

In 2025, the Senate considered a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (CPI) to investigate widespread judgment selling, including accusations involving STJ ministers. [1] [2]

[1] Folha de S.Paulo, 'Senado avalia CPI das sentenças judiciais', maio de 2025.

[2] Registros do Senado Federal, Comissão de Constituição e Justiça (CCJ), 2025.

Legal literature emphasizes the urgent need to reform disciplinary oversight mechanisms to prevent corporatism and protect public trust in the judiciary. [1] [2]

[1] Artigos acadêmicos publicados na Revista Brasileira de Direito Público e Revista de Informação Legislativa, edições de 2021 a 2025.

[2] Estudos do IBCCRIM e ENFAM sobre responsabilização de magistrados.