Lula’s Defense Attorneys Statement – September 14th, 2016.

Lula and Ms. Marisa Letícia repudiate charge filed by Car Wash

Petition filed by the Office of the Federal Prosecutor is illusion trick; press conference is a deplorable spectacle. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and his wife Ms. Marisa Letícia Lula da Silva publicly and vehemently repudiate the petition filed today, September 14th, 2016, by the Office of the Federal Prosecutor (MPF), [as it is] based on a crystal clear legal inconsistency.

The petition itself got lost amid the deplorable spectacle of verbosity presented by the Car Wash Task Force. The MPF elected Lula as “conductor of a criminal organization” yet “overlooked” a key point: the submission of evidence for the crimes imputed. “Who had power?” Answer: Lula. Thus he was the “maximum commander” of the Brazilian “kickback-cracy”. A new country was born today under the baton of Deltan Dallagnol, and in this country being friends with someone and having political allies is a crime.

The Lula-centric farce created is an assault on the Democratic Rule of Law and on the intelligence of the Brazilian citizens.  Not a single action perpetrated by Lula, much less any proof, has been presented. Since the beginning of Operation Car Wash the ex-President’s life has been investigated minutely. They found nothing. Thus, it was necessary to resort to a farcical speech. They put up a thesis based on objective responsibility [that is] incompatible with the penal code. Lula’s crime to Car Wash is having been president of the Republic.

The bulk of Dallagnol’s speech failed to address the object of the actual petition filed on this date – focused primarily on the alleged ownership of apartment 164-A in the Solaris Building, in Guarujá (SP). His political conduct is incompatible with the office of Prosecutor General of the Republic and the use of public funds by the Office of the Federal Prosecutor for the purpose of divulging his theses.

In order to sustain the impossible – ownership of apartment 164-A, in the Solaris Building, in Guarujá – the Car Wash Task Force has resorted to an illusion trick, promoting a reproachable judicial and media spectacle. The unquestionable fact is that Lula and Marisa are not the owners of the aforementioned apartment, which belongs to OAS.

If they are not the owners, Lula and his wife cannot be the beneficiaries of any renovation done there. No artifice can change this reality. In the capacity of their lawyers, we affirm that our clients have not, therefore, committed the crimes of passive bribery (Penal Code, art. 317, Title), misrepresentation (Penal Code, art. 299), or money-laundering (Law nr 9,613/98, art. 1).

The petition does not sustain itself in face of what is presented below:

1-Violation of the guarantees of the dignity of the human person, the presumption of innocence, and the rules and regulations on Social Communication of the National Council of the Public Prosecution (CNMP).

The press conference held by the MPF today relied on public funds to rent space and equipment solely for the purpose of exposing the image and reputation of Lula and his wife, a situation incompatible with the dignity of the human person and the presumption of innocence. The event presented the charge as a prejudgment of those involved, thus violating Article 15 of Recommendation nr 39, of August 2016 issued by the National Council of the Public Prosecution, which establishes the Social Communication Policy for the Public Prosecution.

2-There is nothing that can justify these accusations.

2.1 – Passive bribery

Ex-President Lula and his wife were charged with the crime of passive bribery (Penal Code, art.317, Title), yet:

2.2.1 The apartment that would have allegedly received the improvements is, however, property of OAS, as is established beyond a doubt by the registration with the Registry of Deeds (Registration 104801, of the Guarujá Registry of Deeds), an official public act. In this regard, the law sets forth:

“Article 1,245. The conveyance of a property between parties is carried out by means of the registration of a transfer deed with the Registry of Deeds”. The petition does not contain a single element that may supersede this legal provision, thus proving to be a piece of fiction.

2.2.2. The charge is further confirmed as illusion trick on account of the fact that the document is premised on the assumption that the apartment was “handed over” to Lula without a single element to support such a statement.

2.2.3. Lula was once in the apartment in the company of Ms. Marisa — to know it and to assess whether they had any interest in the purchase. The ex-President and his relatives have never used the property, much less have they exercised any other property features, as provided for in Article1,228, of the Civil Code (use, enjoyment, and disposal).

2.2.4. Ms. Marisa acquired, in 2005, a share in real estate cooperative scheme Cooperativa Habitacional dos Bancários (Bancoop) that, if paid up, would entitle her to an apartment in the Mar Cantábrico Building (former name of today’s Solaris Building). She made payments up to 2009, when the undertaking was transferred to OAS by decision of the shareholders, accompanied by the Office of the Prosecutor of the State of São Paulo. Because of that, Ms. Marisa had the option of using the amount invested to pay for part  of one unit in the Solaris Building – which would be finished by OAS — or receive the amount invested back, under pre-established conditions. After visiting the Solaris Building and deciding she had no interest in acquiring the unit 164-A she had been offered, she opted, on November 26th, 2015, for a reimbursement of the amount invested. Presently, this amount is being demanded by Ms. Marisa from Bancoop and OAS through a lawsuit (Filing nr 107625869.2016.8.26.0100, pending a ruling by the 34th Civil Court of the District of São Paulo), currently in the phase when defendants are notified.

2.2.5. Thus the Federal Prosecution’s first premise to attribute to Lula and his wife the practice of the crime of passive bribery — the ownership of apartment 164-A — is unequivocally false, as the property does not and has never belonged to Lula or his relatives.

2.2.6. The Federal Prosecution was unable to submit any misconduct by Lula as regards the storage of the presidential belongings. Lula was charged with being the owner of the belongings. The complaint is based, therefore, on objective responsibility that is incompatible with the penal law.

2.3 – Lula was charged with the crime of money-laundering (Law nr 9,613/98, art. 1) under the argument that he would have disguised having received “illicit advantages” from OAS, who would be “a direct beneficiary of the Petrobras kickback scheme investigated by Operation Car Wash”.

2.3.1 To be characterized as the crime established in Article 1 of Law nr 9,613/98, Lula and his wife would have had to conceal or disguise assets, rights, or monies “knowing they had originated, directly or indirectly, from crime”.

2.3.2 In addition to the fact that the ex-President is not the owner of the apartment in Guarujá (SP) where the “improvements’ paid for by OAS would have taken place, not one single concrete element was submitted that might indicate that the resources used by the company had their origin in Petrobras kickbacks, much less that Lula and his wife were aware of this supposedly illicit origin.

Cristiano Zanin Martins and Roberto Teixeira

Defense Attorneys