domingo, 1 de março de 2026

Iudex venditus Brazil's Superior Court of Justice (STJ) upholds conviction for misconduct of former judge for selling rulings.

Iudex venditus

Brazil's Superior Court of Justice (STJ) upholds conviction for misconduct of former judge for selling rulings.

By Danilo Vital

February 28, 2026, 7:51 AM

CONJUR

The Second Panel of the Superior Court of Justice upheld the conviction of former federal judge Manoel Álvares for administrative misconduct due to the sale of a judicial decision while serving as a substitute judge at the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region.

Reproduction

A judge who was acting as a substitute in the TRF-3 (Regional Federal Court of the 3rd Region) was convicted for charging for a preliminary injunction.

In a judgment from December 2025, the ruling of which was published this month, the panel partially granted the former magistrate's special appeal, only to reduce the amount of the civil fine.

In the original conviction, he would have had to pay a penalty of three times the amount of the illicit enrichment related to the R$ 300,000 he received in exchange for the court decision.

The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) reduced the amount to one time, through retroactive application of the new Administrative Improbity Law .

The sale of the ruling was discovered by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office in 2006 through the plea bargain testimony of money launderer Lúcio Funaro, who detailed having paid R$ 300,000 in exchange for an injunction in a tax case.

The decision suspended a tax procedure against the money launderer, which would have allowed the expiration of a tax debt of R$ 12.9 million. The payment was brokered by lawyer Luís Roberto Pardo, who was also convicted in the corruption case.

Request for exemption

Manoel Álvares was the target of investigative measures and wiretapping. The information led the TRF-3 (Regional Federal Court of the 3rd Region) to initiate disciplinary administrative proceedings in 2009, which were unsuccessful because the magistrate resigned from his position in 2013.

He was also the target of a criminal action in which he was convicted of the crime of passive corruption aggravated by breach of official duty in the first instance, a process that is confidential and which has an appeal to the TRF-3.

With the conviction for administrative misconduct, the former magistrate suffers the sanction of losing his public office, in addition to the suspension of his political rights for ten years and a ban on contracting with the public sector for the same period.

The winning vote was that of the rapporteur, Minister Teodoro Silva Santos, supported by Ministers Afrânio Vilela and Francisco Falcão.

Minister Maria Thereza de Assis Moura was partially overruled. She voted to alter the starting point for the statute of limitations for the conduct, which would not affect the outcome of the case, and proposed reducing the fine, but setting it at a higher level than that admitted by the rapporteur: double the value of the increase in assets (R$ 600,000).

Danilo Vital

He is a correspondent for the legal magazine Consultor Jurídico in Brasília.

Click here to read the judgment

AREsp 2.150.552

https://www.conjur.com.br/2026-fev-28/stj-confirma-condenacao-por-improbidade-de-ex-juiz-por-venda-de-decisao/

SPECIAL APPEAL INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL (AGRAVO EM RECURSO ESPECIAL) No. 2,150,552 – SP (2022/0178939-6)

REPORTING JUSTICE: Minister Teodoro Silva Santos

APPELLANT: Manoel Alvares

ATTORNEYS: Joelson Costa Dias – DF010441; Marcelo da Silva Prado – SP162312; Ubiratan Menezes da Silveira – DF026442; Georghio Alessandro Tomelin – SP221518; Maira Daniela Goncalves Castaldi Luniere – DF039894

APPELLANT: Luís Roberto Pardo

ATTORNEYS: Marco Antonio de Almeida Prado Gazzetti – SP113573; Vanessa Zamariollo dos Santos – SP207772; Felipe Jun Takiuti de Sá – SP302993

APPELLEE: Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (Ministério Público Federal)

INTERESTED PARTY: Lucio Bolonha Funaro

ATTORNEYS: Pedro Raposo Jaguaribe – DF042473; Gabriel Bartolomeu Felício Teixeira – DF044085; José Luiz Bayeux Neto – SP301453

---

HEADNOTE (EMENTA)

CIVIL PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. ADMINISTRATIVE IMPROBITY. INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL IN A SPECIAL APPEAL. IMPROBITY ACT PRACTICED BY A FEDERAL JUDGE TOGETHER WITH A CO-DEFENDANT. GRANTING OF A JUDICIAL DECISION UPON PAYMENT OF AN UNLAWFUL ADVANTAGE. UNLAWFUL ENRICHMENT. VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION. ABSENCE OF DECISIONAL DEFECTS IN THE APPEALED JUDGMENT. ALLEGATION OF VIOLATION OF ARTS. 128, 131 AND 332 OF THE CPC/73, ARTS. 10, 37, 141, 369 AND 371, ITEM I, OF THE CPC/2015, ARTS. 155 AND 386, ITEM VII, BOTH OF THE CPP. NOT KNOWN. INCIDENCE OF PRECEDENT (SÚMULA) No. 7/STJ AND PRECEDENT (SÚMULA) No. 284/STF. PRESCRIPTION BAR SET ASIDE (ART. 23, ITEM II, OF THE LIA). ACTIO NATA PRESCRIPTION THEORY. CONVICTION MAINTAINED. DISPROPORTIONALITY OF SANCTIONS. NOT PRESENT. BENEFICIAL RETROACTIVITY OF LAW No. 14,230/2021 AS TO THE SANCTION APPLIED. REDUCTION OF THE CIVIL FINE TO THE AMOUNT OF THE UNLAWFUL INCREASE IN ASSETS. SETTING ASIDE OF THE FINE PROVIDED FOR IN § 2 OF THE CPC (ART. 1,026, …; SÚMULA No. 98/STJ). INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS KNOWN IN ORDER TO KNOW, IN PART, OF THE SPECIAL APPEALS AND, TO THAT EXTENT, GRANT THEM PARTIAL RELIEF.

1. The court of origin addressed, in a reasoned manner, the points relevant to resolving the controversy, including the allegations of prescription, curtailment of defense, violation of the natural judge/physical identity of the judge, amount in controversy, plea bargain/benefit to the cooperating witness, lawfulness of telephone interceptions, and effects of criminal decision. The case law of the Superior Court of Justice has settled that “the judge is not required to answer all issues raised by the parties, when he has already found sufficient reason to render the decision […] the judge’s duty is only to address the issues capable of undermining the conclusion adopted in the appealed decision” (EDcl in MS No. 21,315/DF, Reporting Justice Minister Diva Malerbi (Appellate Judge sitting by designation from the TRF 3rd Region), First Section, tried in DJe 8/6/2016, … 15/6/2016).

2. The appellant did not challenge, in a specific and analytical manner, the incidence of the obstacle of Súmula No. 7/STJ, failing to demonstrate how examination of the theses would be possible (violation of arts. 128 and 131 of the CPC/1973; and 371 of the CPC/2015; art. 332 of the CPC/1973; art. 369 of the CPC/2015) without reexamination of evidence (AgInt in AREsp 2,498,984/SC, DJe 4/6/2024; AgInt in AREsp 1,790,197/SP, DJe 1/7/2021; AREsp 1,795,402/SP, AgInt, DJe 13/4/2023; AREsp 1,770,082/SP, 30/4/2021).

3. There was no curtailment of defense, since the personal testimony was taken under the civil procedure rite, without reservation by the party and with prevalence of the questions of the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office, a measure compatible with the purpose of personal testimony in civil procedure (seeking confession), so that no flaw in due process of law is perceived. Moreover, not every denial of any and all evidence is capable of vitiating the judgment; it is required to demonstrate its indispensability.

4. The judgment rendered by a designated judge, in a substitution/task-force regime, is valid, absent prejudice to the parties. The principle of the physical identity of the judge is not absolute, so that a judgment rendered by a judge who did not preside over the taking of evidence is valid, even if he decided as an occasional substitute, in a task-force regime (AgRg in Ag 624,779/RS, Special Court, DJe 17/11/2008; REsp 1,613,988/PR, Third Panel, DJe 11/9/2024). Incidence of Súmula No. 7/STJ as to the claim to reexamine facts to undermine the regularity of the designation.

5. The initial term of prescription was correctly set based on the actio nata theory, alongside the finding of the unequivocal knowledge of the holder of the action (Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office), the notorious knowledge of the fact by other persons being irrelevant. The application, at the time, of art. 23, item II, of the LIA, in combination with § 2 of art. 142 of Law 8,112/1990 and with the Penal Code, art. 109, item II, is deemed correct.

6. The improbity action, as a rule, is not subject to the outcome of the criminal action, except in the hypotheses of acquittal due to nonexistence of the fact or denial of authorship, given the independence of the instances.

7. Súmula No. 7/STJ prevents reexamination of the evidentiary record for redoing the sanction dosimetry, except in the case of blatant disproportionality. There is no impediment to the cumulative application of the sanctions of art. 12 of the LIA, provided proportionality and reasonableness are observed (AgInt in AgRg in REsp 1,532,762/SP; AREsp 790,561/RJ; REsp 1,091,420/SP; …). The sanctions applied by the court of origin are consistent with the improbity act by unlawful enrichment (art. 9 of the LIA) practiced in collusion and upon payment of an undue advantage to a public agent.

8. With the advent of Law No. 14,230/2021, it is necessary to adjust the civil fine to the parameters of the new art. 12, item I, of the LIA, applicable to proceedings without res judicata, according to the thesis of Theme No. 1,199 of the STF’s general repercussion and precedents of this Superior Court. Incidence of beneficial retroactivity in the concrete case, given that the new wording of the LIA provides for payment of a civil fine equivalent to the amount of the increase in assets, and no longer up to three times that amount, as set in the judgment.

9. The fine of art. 1,026, § 2, of the CPC/2015 applied at the origin does not remain, given the purpose of prequestioning of the motions for clarification (embargos de declaração) filed. Súmula No. 98/STJ applies in the case: “motions for clarification filed with a notorious purpose of prequestioning do not have a dilatory character.”

10. Interlocutory appeals known in order to know in part of the special appeals and, to that extent, grant them partial relief.

---

JUDGMENT (ACÓRDÃO)

Having seen and reported these records in which the parties are those indicated above, the Justices of the SECOND PANEL of the Superior Court of Justice, continuing the trial after the partially divergent concurring opinion (voto-vista) of Justice Maria Thereza de Assis Moura, by majority, decide to know the interlocutory appeals in order to know, in part, of the special appeals and, in that part, grant them partial relief, under the terms of the vote of the Reporting Justice Minister. Justice Maria Thereza de Assis Moura was partially defeated. Justices Afrânio Vilela and Francisco Falcão voted with the Reporting Justice Minister. Justice Marco Aurélio Bellizze was disqualified (impedido).

Brasília, December 16, 2025.

MINISTER TEODORO SILVA SANTOS

Reporting Justice

Click here to read the judgment

AREsp 2.150.552

Superior Court of Justice (Superior Tribunal de Justiça)

Case Search (Consulta Processual)

AREsp No. 2,150,552 / SP (2022/0178939-6) — docketed on 06/20/2022

Details | Stages | Decisions | Petitions | Docket (Hearings/Calendars)

02/23/2026 06:06 — FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE electronically notified of Decisions and Views on 02/23/2026 (300104)
02/20/2026 15:46 — Submitted for decision to Justice TEODORO SILVA SANTOS (Reporting Justice) (51)
02/20/2026 03:08 — FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE electronically notified of Decisions and Views on 02/20/2026 (300104)
02/12/2026 18:31 — Filing/attachment of an OBJECTION (IMPUGNAÇÃO) petition No. 112688/2026 (85)
02/12/2026 18:20 — Filing/attachment of an OBJECTION (IMPUGNAÇÃO) petition No. 112680/2026 (85)
02/12/2026 18:11 — Petition 112688/2026 filed (IMP – OBJECTION) on 02/12/2026 (118)
02/12/2026 18:09 — Petition 112680/2026 filed (IMP – OBJECTION) on 02/12/2026 (118)
02/11/2026 04:05 — Electronic notice made available (Decisions and Views) to the FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE (300105)
02/11/2026 00:46 — VIEW published to the opposing party/parties for objection to the Motions for Clarification (Embargos de Declaração — EDcl) on 02/11/2026, Petition No. 84506/2026 (92)
02/10/2026 04:16 — Electronic notice made available (Decisions and Views) to the FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE (300105)
02/10/2026 01:06 — Made available in the Electronic Official Gazette – DJEN (CNJ) (1061)
02/10/2026 00:59 — VIEW published to the opposing party/parties for objection to the Motions for Clarification (EDcl) on 02/10/2026, Petition No. 85565/2026 (92)
02/09/2026 14:49 — Administrative procedural act performed (VIEW to the opposing party/parties for objection to the Motions for Clarification (EDcl) – Petition No. 84506/2026. Publication scheduled for 02/11/2026) (11383)
02/09/2026 01:41 — Made available in the Electronic Official Gazette – DJEN (CNJ) (1061)
02/06/2026 16:15 — Administrative procedural act performed (VIEW to the opposing party/parties for objection to the Motions for Clarification (EDcl) – Petition No. 85565/2026. Publication scheduled for 02/10/2026) (11383)
02/06/2026 15:51 — Filing/attachment of MOTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION (EDcl) petition No. 85565/2026 (85)
02/06/2026 15:36 — Petition 85565/2026 filed (EDcl – MOTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION) on 02/06/2026 (118)
02/06/2026 14:11 — Filing/attachment of MOTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION (EDcl) petition No. 84506/2026 (85)
02/06/2026 13:50 — Petition 84506/2026 filed (EDcl – MOTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION) on 02/06/2026 (118)
01/14/2026 14:11 — Filing/attachment of petition ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY THE MPF No. 24824/2026 (85)
01/14/2026 13:52 — Petition 24824/2026 filed (CieMPF – ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY THE MPF) on 01/14/2026 (118)
01/08/2026 04:05 — FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE electronically notified of the Judgments (Acórdãos) on 01/07/2026 (300104)
12/23/2025 04:20 — Electronic notice made available (Judgments) to the FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE (300105)
12/23/2025 00:58 — HEADNOTE / JUDGMENT published on 12/23/2025 (92)
12/22/2025 02:30 — Made available in the Electronic Official Gazette – DJEN (CNJ) (1061)
12/22/2025 02:03 — Made available in the Electronic Official Gazette – DJEN (CNJ) (1061)
12/19/2025 17:20 — Administrative procedural act performed — Judgment forwarded for publication — Publication scheduled for 12/23/2025 (11383)
12/17/2025 20:55 — Electronic case records received in the SECOND PANEL (SEGUNDA TURMA) (132)
12/16/2025 17:51 — The appeal of MANOEL ALVARES and LUÍS ROBERTO PARDO was known in part and granted in part, by majority, by the SECOND PANEL (241)
12/16/2025 17:51 — Final proclamation of judgment: “Continuing the trial, after the partially divergent voto-vista of Justice Maria Thereza de Assis Moura, the Panel, by majority, knew the interlocutory appeals in order to know in part of the special appeals and, in that part, grant them partial relief, under the terms of the vote of the Reporting Justice. Justice Maria Thereza de Assis Moura was partially defeated.” (3001)
12/09/2025 07:08 — FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE electronically notified of the Hearing Docket/Calendar on 12/09/2025 (300104)
11/28/2025 06:19 — Electronic notice made available (Hearing Docket/Calendar) to the FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE (300105)
11/28/2025 04:11 — Electronic notice made available (Hearing Docket/Calendar) to the FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE (300105)
11/28/2025 01:03 — HEARING DOCKET/CALENDAR published on 11/28/2025 (92)
11/27/2025 18:31 — Filing/attachment of POWER OF ATTORNEY/SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL petition No. 1160458/2025 (85)
11/27/2025 18:21 — Petition type changed (Petition No. 1160458/2025 changed from PET – PETITION to PROC – POWER OF ATTORNEY/SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL) (30077)
11/27/2025 17:35 — Petition 1160458/2025 filed (PET – PETITION) on 11/27/2025 (118)
11/27/2025 01:20 — Made available in the Electronic Official Gazette – DJEN (CNJ) (1061)
11/26/2025 16:01 — Included on the docket for 12/16/2025 14:00:00 by the SECOND PANEL (417)
10/16/2025 18:37 — Submitted for judgment to Justice MARIA THEREZA DE ASSIS MOURA (Justice) after request for review (vistas) (51)
10/16/2025 17:35 — Electronic case records received in the SECOND PANEL (132)
10/15/2025 23:59 — Deliberated in session — request for review (pedido de vista) by Justice MARIA THEREZA DE ASSIS MOURA (12204)
10/15/2025 23:59 — Partial proclamation of judgment: After the vote of the Reporting Justice knowing the interlocutory appeals to know partially of the special appeals and, in that part, grant them partial relief, which was followed by Justices Afrânio Vilela and Francisco Falcão, Justice Maria Thereza de Assis Moura requested review (vista). (3001)
09/29/2025 09:30 — FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE electronically notified of the Hearing Docket/Calendar on 09/29/2025 (300104)
09/23/2025 17:01 — Filing/attachment of PETITION No. 900593/2025 (85)
09/23/2025 16:37 — Petition 900593/2025 filed (PET – PETITION) on 09/23/2025 (118)
09/19/2025 04:06 — Electronic notice made available (Hearing Docket/Calendar) to the FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE (300105)
09/19/2025 01:00 — HEARING DOCKET/CALENDAR published on 09/19/2025 (92)
09/18/2025 03:22 — Made available in the Electronic Official Gazette – DJEN (CNJ) (1061)
09/18/2025 02:24 — Made available in the Electronic Official Gazette – DJEN (CNJ) (1061)
09/17/2025 19:20 — Included on the docket for 10/09/2025 00:00:00 by the SECOND PANEL (Virtual Session) (417)
03/15/2024 12:42 — Submitted for decision to Justice TEODORO SILVA SANTOS (Reporting Justice) — by SJD (51)
03/15/2024 10:03 — Redistributed due to prevention, due to forwarding to ARP, to Justice TEODORO SILVA SANTOS — SECOND PANEL (36)
03/15/2024 09:37 — Case received for redistribution by succession (30075)
03/14/2024 17:50 — Electronic case records received in the COORDINATION FOR CLASSIFICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF CASES (132)
10/17/2023 07:46 — Records received in the CHAMBERS OF JUSTICE ASSUSETE MAGALHÃES (132)
10/16/2023 14:45 — Submitted for judgment to Justice ASSUSETE MAGALHÃES (Reporting Justice) with the MPF’s opinion (51)
10/13/2023 01:48 — FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE electronically notified of the Order/Decision on 10/13/2023 (300104)
10/13/2023 01:48 — FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE electronically notified of the Order/Decision on 10/13/2023 (300104)
10/11/2023 19:40 — Electronic case records received in the COORDINATION FOR PROCESSING OF PUBLIC LAW CASES (132)
10/11/2023 19:31 — Filing/attachment of the MPF’s OPINION petition No. 1026646/2023 (85)
10/11/2023 19:16 — Petition type changed (Petition No. 1026646/2023 changed from PET – PETITION to ParMPF – MPF OPINION) (30077)
10/11/2023 19:14 — Petition 1026646/2023 filed (PET – PETITION) on 10/11/2023 (118)
10/03/2023 15:53 — Digital copy of the records made available to the FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE (300101)
10/03/2023 13:45 — Records with view to the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office for opinion (30015)
10/03/2023 05:53 — Electronic notice made available (Decisions and Views) to the FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE (300105)
10/03/2023 05:06 — ORDER / DECISION published on 10/03/2023 (92)
10/02/2023 19:55 — Made available in the Electronic Official Gazette – ORDER / DECISION (1061)
09/29/2023 19:50 — Order issued (mere administrative order) determining a manifestation/statement (11010)
09/29/2023 19:50 — Administrative procedural act performed — Document forwarded for publication — Publication scheduled for 10/03/2023 (11383)
09/28/2023 11:41 — Filing/attachment of PETITION No. 980174/2023 (85)
09/28/2023 11:30 — Petition 980174/2023 filed (PET – PETITION) on 09/28/2023 (118)
05/03/2023 15:16 — Submitted for decision to Justice ASSUSETE MAGALHÃES (Reporting Justice) (51)
05/03/2023 15:06 — Filing/attachment of the MPF’s OPINION petition No. 401890/2023 (85)
05/03/2023 15:03 — Records received in the COORDINATION FOR PROCESSING OF PUBLIC LAW CASES of the FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE (132)
05/03/2023 15:03 — Petition 401890/2023 filed (ParMPF – MPF OPINION) on 05/03/2023 (118)
02/17/2023 01:20 — FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE electronically notified of the Order/Decision on 02/17/2023 (300104)
02/08/2023 12:13 — Digital copy of the records made available to the FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE (300101)
02/07/2023 14:17 — Records with view to the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office for opinion (30015)
02/07/2023 05:31 — Electronic notice made available (Decisions and Views) to the FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE (300105)
02/07/2023 05:01 — ORDER / DECISION published on 02/07/2023 (92)
02/06/2023 20:59 — Made available in the Electronic Official Gazette – ORDER / DECISION (1061)
02/03/2023 20:10 — Administrative procedural act performed — Document forwarded for publication — Publication scheduled for 02/07/2023 (11383)
02/03/2023 20:10 — Order issued (mere administrative order) determining view to the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (11010)
01/23/2023 10:01 — Filing/attachment of PETITION No. 25187/2023 (85)
01/23/2023 09:54 — Petition 25187/2023 filed (PET – PETITION) on 01/23/2023 (118)
08/08/2022 09:39 — Submitted for decision to Justice ASSUSETE MAGALHÃES (Reporting Justice) — by SJD (51)
08/08/2022 08:17 — Redistributed by dependency, due to forwarding to NARER, to Justice ASSUSETE MAGALHÃES — SECOND PANEL. Prevented case: AREsp 664,609 (2015/0037229-8) (36)
07/29/2022 12:24 — Records received in the COORDINATION FOR ANALYSIS AND CLASSIFICATION OF LEGAL TOPICS AND DISTRIBUTION OF CASES (132)
07/29/2022 12:04 — Case records sent (for distribution) to the COORDINATION FOR ANALYSIS AND CLASSIFICATION OF LEGAL TOPICS AND DISTRIBUTION OF CASES, because the case does not fall within the Presidency’s assignments, provided in art. 21-E of the Internal Rules of the Superior Court of Justice, or because the case file was regularized (123)
07/04/2022 14:02 — Submitted for decision to the PRESIDENT OF THE STJ (Reporting Justice) — by SJD (51)
07/04/2022 14:00 — Assigned by exclusive competence to the PRESIDENT OF THE STJ (26)
06/09/2022 15:03 — Electronic case records received in the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE from the FEDERAL REGIONAL COURT OF THE 3RD REGION (132)

Version 3.7.16 | of 02/05/2026 18:02.
+55 61 3319-8000

Nenhum comentário:

Postar um comentário

MINDD - DEFENDA SEUS DIREITOS

Pesquisar este blog