Post by xyz3600 on Feb 25, 2024 7:34:32 GMT 1
The Anti-Corruption Law introduced a series of measures into the legal microsystem to combat misconduct committed to the detriment of the treasury. Objective liability, integrity mechanisms, the possibility of more intense administrative action with relevant penalties are all elements that we have become accustomed to, as legal operators who deal with this legislation on a day-to-day basis, in the more than five years that the law has been in force. Spacca Igor Tamasauskas Leniency agreements, already common in other areas, such as anti-trust, have become part of the national reality since the practice was imposed as a result of the actions of the Federal Public Ministry, within the scope of the "lava jet" operation, in, with the first agreement with SOG Oil and Gas and other companies.
Since then, there have been more than two dozen agreements signed and approved by the 5th MPF Coordination and Review Chamber. Along the way, complementary rules were established to organize the negotiation process, under increasingly objective guidelines. Still at the federal level, the Comptroller General of the Union and the Attorney General of the Union overcame gaps in legislation and also managed to Middle East Mobile Number List establish a consistent program for concluding this type of agreement. Infralegal standards were published, recently updated, as a “gateway” to the system. The confidentiality of the negotiations was guaranteed, the destruction of evidence presented during the negotiations, in the event of an agreement not being signed, the impediment of public officials who came into contact with the negotiation from participating in any possible sanctioning process — also in the case of non-compliance with the negotiations.
The rule allows the interested party to infer the range of the possible fine to be established in the leniency agreement, providing some predictability, to a degree that is still far from desirable, given the fact that we are still in the learning curve. At the state level, in São Paulo, the influx of this legislation has identically been bearing fruit for negotiated solutions in cases of corruption. The São Paulo practice indicates a legal solution that is slightly different from the federal plan, however ingenious and also in the process of improvement. The Public Ministry of São Paulo adopted the celebration of “self-composition term”, included in art. 36, par.4, of Law no. 13,140/15, as a means of supporting consensual solutions in anti-corruption matters. Once the adjustment is made, it is submitted to judicial approval. One of the criticisms that this model has received lies in the lack of supervision by the Superior Council, causing a lack of internal cohesion within the MPSP itself, regarding the instrument.
Since then, there have been more than two dozen agreements signed and approved by the 5th MPF Coordination and Review Chamber. Along the way, complementary rules were established to organize the negotiation process, under increasingly objective guidelines. Still at the federal level, the Comptroller General of the Union and the Attorney General of the Union overcame gaps in legislation and also managed to Middle East Mobile Number List establish a consistent program for concluding this type of agreement. Infralegal standards were published, recently updated, as a “gateway” to the system. The confidentiality of the negotiations was guaranteed, the destruction of evidence presented during the negotiations, in the event of an agreement not being signed, the impediment of public officials who came into contact with the negotiation from participating in any possible sanctioning process — also in the case of non-compliance with the negotiations.
The rule allows the interested party to infer the range of the possible fine to be established in the leniency agreement, providing some predictability, to a degree that is still far from desirable, given the fact that we are still in the learning curve. At the state level, in São Paulo, the influx of this legislation has identically been bearing fruit for negotiated solutions in cases of corruption. The São Paulo practice indicates a legal solution that is slightly different from the federal plan, however ingenious and also in the process of improvement. The Public Ministry of São Paulo adopted the celebration of “self-composition term”, included in art. 36, par.4, of Law no. 13,140/15, as a means of supporting consensual solutions in anti-corruption matters. Once the adjustment is made, it is submitted to judicial approval. One of the criticisms that this model has received lies in the lack of supervision by the Superior Council, causing a lack of internal cohesion within the MPSP itself, regarding the instrument.