In criminal law, the distinction between a commercial disagreement and fraud lies in the perpetrator's intent: when someone takes goods with the intention to use them for personal purposes rather than the agreed-upon purpose (such as resale), this constitutes fraud under Article 171 of the Brazilian Penal Code, as the victim was misled about the intended use of the property.
Installez notre extension pour rechercher instantanément dans n'importe quelle vidéo
NOVOS VÍDEOS DA BRASILEIRA MORTA NA ESPANHA | BRASILEIRA É ACUSADA DE DESVIO DE JOIAS | CASO ARACELIAjouté :
[music] Ol. Hello, good evening to everyone watching us, you're on this ship called Case by Case. I am IMAR Muniz, I am a lawyer, law professor, and as you know, from now on, on Mondays I will be attempting to fill the challenge of being in the place of our dear and one of the greatest investigative journalists in this country, Carlinha Albuquerque. Look, and here, as we know, we're going to talk about complex cases. Today we have two cases with a lot of new information, a lot indeed. And I want your opinion, I want you to tell me what you've heard while listening to the new audios that are surfacing, which are truly revealing. Cases like these, which I started hearing about, were sent to me by the production team, and I said, "My God, there's nothing else to do now, and I want your opinion, if you agree with me too." This is clearly the case of that young woman who died in Spain, which we are investigating. The case is on the line, and with this new development, there's certainly a lot for us to discuss. And the second case that we are going to discuss today is clearly that of the young woman who supposedly, and I say supposedly because I have a responsibility being on this side of the bench, stole, took, misappropriated jewelry, a loss of more than R$ 100 million, and I am here with one of the greatest criminal lawyers in the country to say that she is extremely up-to-date on this case. I was giving myself a lesson on this subject. Dr. Ana Paula Cima, thank you so much for coming here to talk to us.
Thank you for the invitation, thank you for the compliments. It's a pleasure to be here again. I like this program. It's a pleasure to be here with you again, sir. We've already met on SBT, and today we're going to discuss some emblematic cases—yes, cases that will divide opinions and raise many interesting questions, right? Because these are cases that have revelations that could completely change the course of the investigations when we talk about the first case.
That's right, you see? That's right, folks. Look, but before I begin, I want to say, before I forget—because I have such a terrible memory—but I was very happy when I got here. I want to do it for about 5 minutes. I received this wonderful book from the doctor here.
Look, for those who don't already have this copy, " Crimes Against Honor," the author is an expert in the field. Buy it; I received it as a gift. It has her dedication and also the little mug, which, obviously, will stay in my office so we can continue making it. So, doctor, thank you very much for the gift, it's going into my collection, it's definitely going on my shelf. I will read it with great care. And for those of you who haven't yet, please do so and learn about crimes against honor. Oh, here it is. Crimes against honor. There is no land without law, oh. That's true, isn't it? There's no such thing as a lawless land, especially on the internet, right, doctor?
That's right.
People think that Earth is lawless there, that nobody will be found, that you can say whatever you want and so on, right? No no. This book is precisely about that. He came up with a criminal case in which a young man was being stalked online, and nobody could do anything about it. And this case came to my office when it was already underway, and we managed to arrest this stalker, right? It ended up becoming a case of stalking, but it originated from a crime against honor, which was defamation and slander, and through repeated actions, it ended up becoming stalking. And then I'll talk a little about this story and bring up the theoretical aspects of crimes against honor. That's really cool.
I'm going to do the following: I'll start with the case of the jewelry, because, as Michele's case from Spain shows, we have a very serious situation. Dr. Karina brought revealing information with audio recordings, and I want you to take some time to analyze them with us. So we'll start with the case of the jewelry. I'm going to read this, specifically the point here.
This situation is where you stand. If you watched Fantástico yesterday, you know what I'm talking about, right? So that we can basically understand what it is. But, let's talk about the case of the Brazilian woman who is being accused of stealing jewelry and pulling off a multi-million dollar scam. To help you understand, a Brazilian woman with U.S. citizenship became the subject of an investigation in Brazil. And in the United States, following allegations of a scheme involving luxury jewelry, pawned items, and losses in the millions, the investigation was also being monitored by the FBI. So that we can understand. The doctor was present during the reporting yesterday and can explain this matter with much more emphasis, but supposedly, from what I understood, the doctor corrected us and gave us her opinion to see if that's actually the case. She was posing as a representative for luxury jewelry brands. So she would act as an intermediary, saying, "Look, I'll get your jewelry here, I'll show it to potential buyers."
So she started having this kind of contact with large companies, large stores that deal in this type of merchandise, jewelry.
Yes.
And then, from what I understand, in the beginning, she even started paying to demonstrate good faith. And at some point, she stops paying, and then people discover that she was pawning these jewels, pocketing the money, and living an extremely luxurious life, because the debt exceeds R$100 million. Is that correct, doctor? That's right. That's right. And we were discussing this here before the program started, because yesterday on Fantástico, what position did her lawyers take? That in reality, there is no crime. What exists is a commercial disagreement. She didn't pay, but that doesn't constitute a crime. And so, because of that, they want to remove the case from the criminal sphere.
And what we need to keep in mind here is to what extent is this a commercial disagreement or does it turn into a crime of fraud? What does article 171 say? When someone, in order to gain an unfair advantage, induces another person into error.
And here's where we start to question ourselves, right? Could this young woman have misled the owners of luxury jewelry stores?
Did she really mislead them? Uh-huh. And what is the point that criminal justice takes into consideration to determine if there was this inducement to error?
The main point is that she wasn't using those jewels in order to resell them. She even did that at the beginning, you know, selling, reselling, passing it on, paying in order to simulate it.
But the purpose was to pawn those jewels in order to finance the luxurious lifestyle she enjoys. Uh-huh.
So, given the intended use of the jewelry, it lost its purpose as stipulated in the commercial agreement, which was for resale. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.
This constitutes the crime of fraud because she misled the person; in other words, the person picked up the jewelry and thought, "Look, I'm giving you this ring," but there were rings, there were tourmalines, I saw the jewelry, and I love jewelry. I stayed there watching which jewels were on display. Extremely luxurious jewelry. Uh-huh.
So she won't give it to me because I'm going to resell it.
She would take items on consignment, but instead of offering them to the people she knew, according to her—the potential buyers—what does she do?
She goes there and pawns things in order to support her luxurious lifestyle. And that's where the crime happens, right? Because the people who handed it over to her in good faith, thinking that she had the possibility of selling it, but in reality there was no possibility of sale, those people were misled. Uh-huh.
And it is this error that constitutes the crime of fraud. Uh-huh. Oh, one point, let me tell you, everyone here talks to me like this, look. When you get a super chat, stop and read the super chat. Let's read the super chat here.
Let's go. Loures Santos, my dear, always comments on it. Thank you so much for your continued kindness. Good evening, Dr. Ilmar and guests. Have a good week and hugs. Oh, have a good week too. And if you have any questions or concerns, please let me know so I can read them here and discuss them with the doctor, because what you say is extremely important to us. I'm impressed by the chat on the Caso a Caso program because questions arise that make me think, "Wow, what investigative people!" And I can understand and say, "Dude, that's exactly it, you were right." So please comment here on a very interesting point you mentioned, doctor. And then, of course, I'm going to make these counterpoints because, as I said, you said: "No, don't do that, but I'm just the interviewer here. I'm going to throw this whole mess into your lap so we can talk."
No, but today it's just the two of us.
No, guys, no. The doctor is coming here because I'll give my opinions later, so we can understand this important issue.
The doctor said that she did, in fact, sell some of these jewels at the beginning, she really started reselling them. And then, halfway through, she changes her mind. Ah, from now on, do you believe that this will be the defense's argument, doctor, saying: "No, look, it always was. She actually pawned it to get money to speed up the sale, and then she was going to get that money back. There was no malice in that information." Do you think that could be a defense argument? It could be a defense argument, yes. There was no malice, but the fact is that the product lost its purpose; she didn't have authorization from the producer, right, the manufacturer of that jewelry, to pawn the jewelry to use the money.
Uh-huh.
So, from the moment she does that, we can't argue that there was no malice because she knew that was n't the purpose of the product she was representing. A representative is there to resell.
Uh-huh. As a lawyer, I wouldn't go down that line of defense that there was no malice because she pawned it. She could have sold the money, she could have sold the... Jewelry, having taken the money and then not being able to pay for something for some other reason. Then yes, you could say there was no intent to defraud, but in this case, no.
Yesterday's report on Fantástico described very well how she would take jewelry here and go directly to some place, I think, if I'm not mistaken, to the bank, I don't know where, she would pawn it.
So the object lost its purpose, and what is the intention to defraud? It's the intention to defraud. So if I come here and say : "Look, give me this ring here, I'm going to sell it in the United States."
Uh-huh. I 'm going to sell it in the United States because I have a buyer who will pay 30,000 for it. And then I give you the ring, believing that you're going to sell it for me. And in reality, you're not going to sell it, you're going to put it in the bank so you have money, because you need to pay your bills to maintain your millionaire lifestyle, your luxurious life. Is there intent to defraud?
Uh-huh. I don't. I would go down that line of defense. They might even try to say that she was a representative, that she exists, that she carried out commercial activity in that sense, and then demonstrate, you know, all the history that she probably did.
But at some point in that activity, she lost sight of its purpose. And when she loses sight of the purpose and stops paying those people, and takes the product she should be selling and uses it for another purpose, which is for her own pleasure, right? For her own pleasure, to maintain her luxurious lifestyle. There is intent. There's no way she can say that she did this unconsciously or that she thought she could. I can't see the absence of intent in this moment. I can't see her behavior, right? It's also an interesting thing, I'm going to question the doctor, so we can debate, and you who are watching us can also raise this position because my role here is to raise a lot of theses and theories for all to be discussed. But first, who gave her these jewels to sell?
Was she paying the correct taxes to take this money abroad? "Jewelry for sale abroad? Wouldn't that also be a somewhat threatening statement from her?
She said, 'Oh, but you were giving that one to me to sell abroad and not even paying the tax?'"
You were just denying it too? In other words, wo n't this also be discussed as a defense test? Wo n't she have that question?
Because she's going to say, "Look, see if you agree with me, huh?
He's throwing it on the fire."
No, not by the bonfire. The point here is for us to discuss issues that really matter, like this: "Look, no, okay, I sold it, but did you pay the tax to send this jewelry abroad?
Because where's the contract that says I had this obligation to sell it?
Or did you give me this jewelry, for example, because I had a relationship with you? Because there's no tax information that this act happened.
But look, thinking about it this way, uh, I had a similar case where they were exporters of jewelry, of soybeans, sorry, and they exported the soybeans and then the Chinese, they sent the money and the soybeans never arrived in China.
Uh-huh.
Regarding this issue, I understand the following: it's not an exclusion of illegality for it. Uh-huh. It's not possible that someone would hand over a piece of jewelry of that value, would expose themselves on Fantástico [a Brazilian TV program], would expose themselves in court. If there had been these past crimes, if it were my client, I would advise them. Look, there's a possibility that this money, this jewelry, wasn't [legal]. It was declared.
If it wasn't declared, would you rather take the risk or would you rather take the loss and stay quiet?
Because Louris Santos also posted it here. Loura posted it, but did she have documentation, a certificate for these jewels? Is that possible? Another important point. Look, people, it's not possible that they would expose themselves to appear on Fantástico, make a complaint, access the FBI. If it were my client, I would say: "I accept your loss and go see your life, my son, because I'll [laughs] get you."
I'm going to bring more ideas and far-fetched legal theories here. Videos. I don't know if you also agree with the issue of raising this issue and whether these jewels were insured and then it was a nice deal with her, take them abroad, cause this loss. We say that she suffered this loss and now receives these jewels from the insurance company because, as the teenager stated here, where is the documentation? Is there documentation, is there a certificate of value, did this really go through, didn't it? Because it's also strange that she managed to take these jewels abroad so easily. We bring a watch from abroad, whatever it is. So, you're illiterate enough to explain. Going out with such expensive, million-dollar jewels without raising any suspicion, would n't that be questionable, doctor, at that point?
Yes, it's questionable, but there's a standard for importing this type of material, for exporting, excuse me, folks, this type of material.
Uh-huh. You need to have the jewel and the stone validated, and that's done by the Federal Police, and then you need authorization to send it abroad. But it's possible, it's possible to do it legally. Whether they were doing it or not, I don't know, but it 's possible. It's like the import process for any other material, the export process for any other material, but there's this issue because it's a stone, extracted from the earth, that requires authorization from, I don't know the name of the authorizations, but it requires specific authorization.
It's like, for example, when here in Brazil we have certain types of marble and building stones that are only found in Brazil, for example, there are certain types of marble that are only found in Brazil.
Uh-huh. You can export that, but there's a whole validation process, both legal and environmental. There's a whole evaluation, there's a process.
Uh-huh.
They need to investigate this because what she appears to be here is a pretty internet girl who had good relationships.
We know that a lot, a lot, happens.
We have a lot, a lot, a lot of precious stones, a lot of gold that goes through the black market without being declared. Uh-huh. And so, it's obvious that this conspiracy theory of mine is meant to be done, but look, there are already people buying into this idea here.
Vladimir, Vladimir Pereira 1873 said: "All jewelers who don't show their faces have already admitted that they are doing something wrong." The jewelers did not expose themselves in the report. I didn't see the news report.
I don't remember that.
They didn't expose themselves. Look, folks, this is an interesting theory, isn't it, doctor?
Interesting theory to discuss, if they actually—look how interesting, this could even be a defense argument— but they showed photos of the jewel, folks. They had a marvelous green tourmaline that is extremely rare in Brazil, and they showed us photos of the jewelry. Would they really be so audacious as to show photos of the jewelry she took?
Or maybe they didn't think about it, did they? As as I've been in this career for many years. I've seen lawyers do all sorts of things. Jesus recently mentioned here, and I won't cite the situation, but people can understand, a very large influencer, in a recorded police statement, says something very foolish, that he wouldn't be held criminally responsible. After what he says alongside a colleague, he becomes responsible and will be charged with drug trafficking.
Our. So, sometimes the client goes beyond what the lawyer says, sometimes the lawyer doesn't realize that the prior disclosure of information could constitute a crime. So how do you know for sure if these jewels are real? Because a lot of questions are starting to come to mind, like how did she take them abroad, what was the documentation like, how did it work, did she have a specific client, and they asked who the person selling them to was.
Yes, it's not easy. It's not easy because I know why my father likes precious stones, and we both like them a lot. Uh-huh. And we even have a quarry that exports marble; it took almost 5 years of paperwork just to get authorization to transport the marble. It's different, isn't it? But when we think about precious stones, there's a lot of control involved, right?
Ah, that really lifted my spirits. And then, another point again, another theory, it seems she would come here, pick up a little necklace and say: "Look, there's a buyer in the United States, I'm going to sell it to her. Tom, take this necklace, you're beautiful, you're rich, you're not going to steal from me."
So, do you understand? Yes, that's exactly how she leaves Brazil with that, with that jewel, she put it on and went out. Was that it? So, the person who was giving her the jewelry knew that it was being sold irregularly, that it wasn't being taxed, because if it's going to be sold, then there has to be a tax on it. So, there are a lot of factors here that, from now on, right? Of course, all our friends from the case at home are exploring them in theory, but they are important. Another important point is how she managed to do all that without documentation, or if she had documentation and she could prove that this documentation isn't necessary here in Brazil.
So let's go. But I'll take a penor of it, it's expensive. No, it's not necessary here in Brazil. You can go to Caixa Econômica and say, "Look, I have this ring here, I want to pawn it, see how much it's worth, and they'll give me the money." Here you don't need any documentation.
You might say that inheritance, for example, sells a family history, but here in Brazil it's not necessary, you don't need to prove your origin. I do n't know how she's coming from outside. The banks that handled this matter as collateral can now have the legal argument of saying: "Hey, but you seized something that was mine, it had documentation, it was only in her possession. How is it that you have it?" I wasn't supposed to be with you when I left; you didn't ask for anything, not even proof. As the lawyer for these people who suffered the loss, I'd say: "Look, I have this documentation that was sent out irregularly, for example, it shouldn't have been pawned. You, the bank, are wrong.
How can you pawn this without the minimum necessary caution? If it were a stolen jewel, for example, as is theoretically the case, there are many, right?
So, this lack of care, this lack of caution will also generate discussion.
Yes, yes.
I think it will generate discussion from the owners, right? Look, buddy, wait a minute. You pawned a jewel worth 1 million, 2 million dollars, and it's there with you. You don't even question where it came from, right? No history whatsoever. You don't ask, the person doesn't even make a statement, demonstrate the origin of it, nothing. In other words, it becomes easy.
It's a receiver of stolen goods. Theoretically, the bank becomes a legalized receiver of stolen goods.
Yes, yes.
That's true, right? Because they say: 'Oh, I don't need to ask.'" In other words, if you buy a product at home, you keep that product at home. You go there and they say: "If you don't have proof of origin, you're a receiver of stolen goods."
Yes.
Now, the bank doesn't need to explain the origin of it?
It's a very serious offense, even for receiving stolen goods.
Exactly.
But here at Caixa Econômica Federal (Brazilian Federal Savings Bank), you don't need to. If you need money, you have a little gold, you go there, leave it, they assess its value based on the price per gram. If it's a precious stone, they analyze its value; you don't need to prove its origin.
And that's crazy, right? We stop to think that this is crazy because Caixa is a legalized receiver of stolen goods.
Theoretically, that's how it is. So if a thief steals a huge amount of jewelry, takes it to Caixa, Caixa won't ask about the origin of anything, deposits the item there, takes the money, and Caixa will be obligated to return it, right? How does that work? Look, I think there's a lot to discuss here, folks.
There is. Yes, there is, but he's a receiver of stolen goods, because if you stop to think about it, how can he not care about the origin of the item?
Right? In other words, it's quite an interesting question. Well, no, no, I don't see any logic in Caixa or any other bank not questioning the origin of things. Oh, I have a jewel worth R$1 million, I put it there for pawn, I get R$1000. If that jewel was stolen, if it was something that, you know, is the product of a crime, they just legalized receiving stolen goods.
Yes, yes. But you know, what makes me indignant about this case, and there are similar cases I've seen in my experience as a lawyer, is that it's a very big excuse, you know? Oh, it's not a crime, I didn't commit a crime, it's a commercial disagreement. Uh- huh.
So, I'll just pay you, I just haven't paid you yet, okay? It doesn't matter what I did with the item, the problem is that I have n't paid you.
Uh-huh. And then they want to shield that person from criminal liability. And here in Brazil, we see this a lot with representatives, clothing representatives, flooring factory representatives, because to represent, the representative often needs to have the merchandise in possession.
Uh-huh. So it starts, we saw recently, we saw manufacturers, factories in Brás, who were scammed out of millions of dollars, 100,000, 1 million, 2 million, by beautiful women who come as representatives, saying, "Look, I 'll take your clothes, give me 100,000 worth of clothes, 200,000 worth of clothes, 300,000 worth of clothes," when she was collecting from various stores, when it accumulated it was more than 1 million worth of clothes, and these clothes never had a destination.
And then they discovered that, in fact, she was selling them, she just did n't pass on the money.
And then the client who filed a criminal complaint also received a lawsuit for moral damages; the person who scammed her sued her for moral damages and said it was n't a scam, she just didn't pass on the money. "He paid.
It's a commercial disagreement. And that brings a feeling of impunity, right?
Uh-huh. So, to what extent can I take what's yours? Ana, give me 10 of your books, I'm going to sell them. Will you sell them? I don't know. If you don't give me the money... Oh, no, but I'll pay you. I'll pay you. Is it just a commercial disagreement? You tricked me.
You already intended to take my books and profit from it and keep stalling me on paying. And the code, I see that we have been updating it, but this issue of commercial disagreement, which is also a provision of fraud in article 171, is something that needs to be better elaborated and we need to discuss it more, because it's a recurring excuse for various scammers in the financial market, in the market, in the financial market, in commerce and among other activities, that people actually take the merchandise.
I see this in various sectors, okay?
Uh-huh. And the one who is harmed is the..." " Worker, right? In the case of the jewelry, we raise suspicions about who these people really were who were producing this jewelry. But we see this in soybean production, import, export of—excuse me, export of soybeans. We see this in retail trade in Brazil, but this happens.
Uh-huh.
You know that a large, a large number of cases that turn into fraud also involve service providers.
Uh-huh.
It's custom-made furniture, industries that manufacture and install glass in places.
Uh-huh.
You come, you hire, the person doesn't provide the service, and then when you go to collect, it's a commercial disagreement.
Uh-huh.
And if you go to the criminal court, no, I just did n't pay, but I will pay. I just did n't install. We see several gangs, right, specialized in... I even had a case to illustrate what the doctor is saying. I had a case, he was even my student at the university, and he was about to get married. He was very well off financially, a very structured guy. Almost R$" 400,000 worth of furniture in the apartment. It was a 300-something square meter apartment, it was something wonderful.
And the store owner was two people, one of whom was a federal police officer, by the way. And he went there, they asked for 70% of the payment to start, because it was furniture, right? Luxury furniture, and so on. He made the payment and, since it was an expensive area of São Paulo, you know, for apartments, all the furniture was in that range, 300,000, 100,000, 150,000. This was 8 years ago, I believe.
And then he got married without having the furniture ready. So he had to, you know, improvise, stay in the other apartment. To summarize the story, everyone filed a police report. Obviously, he filed a police report.
My legal number also filed a police report, other clients filed one, other people filed police reports. The first response everyone gave, everyone gave one, the partner and the federal police officer. We went bankrupt, [snoring] we went bankrupt, we miscalculated the sale, we miscalculated the Cost. I wanted to deliver, but I couldn't. And that's it, you have to hold me accountable in this matter. And that was the argument being used, and most of the delegates were falling for that story, right? In fact, like, wait a minute.
It's just some commercial agreements. Until we stopped to think, wait a minute, okay? Let's gather all the victims and look at the modus operandi and the dates, right, that he was talking about. And then, in this matter, we were able to perceive that the dates were very different, with him claiming that he was doing very well, the store posting, and what he said about not delivering was already another date. So the dates didn't match, that's why this story is falling apart. And even the federal police officer, we managed to get his indictment, and all of them, and the federal police officer is now expelled from the corporation for this reason, he was convicted.
But see how difficult it is to prove something specific to a client, as the doctor is saying.
Yes. Yes, right? You know, in practice, what they do Here's the thing, they don't do it, we make a debt confession agreement. I confess that my debt doesn't need to lead me to criminal charges. I know I owe it, but I can't afford to pay.
Uh-huh. But there's a Supreme Court decision that says a debt confession agreement doesn't exclude criminal liability for the act.
Yes. Yes. And then there's, I've even seen a lawyer use a strategy, I was going to mention a very good defense strategy, because when the client acknowledges the scammer, he acknowledges it, makes a debt confession, and then you contact the police and say: "Look, he even confessed that he does owe money, but the debt originates from a scam," and then you demonstrate the scam. It's a great way to demonstrate that the coup isn't just a commercial disagreement, but that's a lame excuse, isn't it? No, it isn't. And we see this a lot in practice.
Wow, and it was interesting because in order to convince the police chief to start this investigation, I had to bring in almost 25 people with different purchase dates. Imagine the work it took to find these people. We had to go online, back then it was Facebook, we had more access, Facebook by Facebook, talk to each person, ask if they bought anything, if they didn't buy anything, then go to the person's lawyer to call them for a meeting to prove, you know, the strategy that, look, the date he says he was broke, he was already selling in such and such a store, in such and such a way. In other words, they set up three stores in the Consolação area, you know, in Intaim, and they went around ripping everyone off. I know that adding up the 30 people who were almost in that situation, the losses they had already incurred exceeded millions. So we went looking for a supplier, okay? Did they buy from you? No, they weren't buying them, were they? If they were n't buying products, they were simply selling them. Ah, but you didn't buy the wood, you didn't buy such and such, no, you didn't buy anything, you didn't have a supplier. In other words, they never intended to deliver anything; it was just a bad show. And that's it, right? So, unfortunately, or fortunately, as the doctor said, it's very difficult to pull off a scam in these cases. First, you need to prove some things, because there are police officers who say: "No, it's just a disagreement, look into it in the civil court." And many prosecutors, so prostitutes are a whole other story, folks. Some people say, "Oh man, it's just disagreement, it's going to civil court." With several cases. And then we have this case of hers that might lead to that answer, right? If you think about it, she might say, "No, just disagreement." And as the doctor said, it's not a disagreement, is it?
Her intention was different, right? It was a matter of pulling off the coup, period. Yes yes. And now we have to raise this issue and these questions. There are tons of people here, the chat is buzzing, people are talking about people knowing you're a scammer. Comment, I want you all to talk. So, what do you think? A prince in a country where, in my opinion, a coup is so simple? Yeah, I'm going to catch financial scams, hundreds of thousands every single day. Every single day. Best of all, thousands of scams, pyramid schemes, Pix scams, everything is Serato.
Everything will be. And until three weeks ago, we had an issue: for the crime to proceed, we needed a formal complaint. That's because it's changed; now you don't need unconditional anymore.
For God's sake, so that you can understand, three weeks ago, the law was showing the following situation.
You filed the police report there, suffering, I filed the report, I went home, and you didn't go back to the police station to file a complaint for six months. Months passed, it was too late.
So, we're not talking about a petty coup. I have cases of clients who lost 2 million, and millions, and millions, and millions. I have several. There's a case of a romance scam, a victim who lost 2 million to a romance scammer, and if she doesn't go to the police and file a complaint, six months and one day will pass, and it's over. It's closed, folks. It's a crime.
Ah, okay. There is no violence or serious threat. People, the psychological violence that these people who are victims of scams suffer is very intense. I was going to say it 's much bigger than a pointed gun, but the bad thing about the scam is that the person who falls for it is manipulated. So there's this feeling of, wow, how could I have fallen for that? How could I not have noticed? People start to think that she 's less intelligent, you know? And so, depending on economic class, on who I am, I've already slept with doctors, female doctors, I've already slept with lawyers, at the moment of the scam, if you're not focused on what you're doing, you fall for the scam.
So you need to represent the representative, what does that mean, okay? Just legal jargon, let's talk a little bit about legal jargon. The crime of fraud was a crime of public prosecution subject to conditions.
What does that mean? who would have the condition that before needed to have the condition to represent. If you didn't represent them, the state wouldn't protect your rights. They weren't going to, let's say, you can speak in Portuguese, of course, they weren't going to interfere in your problem. Filing a police report wasn't going to solve your problem.
You needed to perform. Not now.
He filed a police report, which then becomes an unconditional public action.
Regardless of whether you want the state to get involved in your problem or not, it will indeed investigate and move forward with the situation. Thanks.
And one by one there was an increase in the penalty as well, right?
Increased penalty. The recent Law 15,000-something has now changed several crimes, including increasing the penalty in these cases.
Yes.
And it brought up some legal absurdities, but it's not the place for us to discuss those absurdities, and it's not just my opinion, okay? Several legal experts are also looking at this law and saying: "Wow, there are so many legal absurdities in this case that will be debated regarding constitutionality. Yes, and they will fall." I believe that when the Supreme Court says: "This is unconstitutional and the paragraphs of some articles cannot remain as they are."
And one point, yes, doctor, excuse me, you can speak.
No, let's go. Now, I said that we're even a little afraid to express ourselves in this way because it might seem like we're defending crime, criminals, but that's not the case, right? It's the constitution. Uh-huh. I talked about it, I talked about it, and we're afraid to talk about it with the public, but there needs to be awareness, right? These penalties have gone too far, even exceeding what the Constitution stipulates. Uh-huh.
And if we were to position ourselves in that way, society will judge us accordingly, because I think he should stay in prison. But being locked up isn't the solution, is it? Well, not only that, but it's something I often talk about so people understand: when legislators and politicians create laws, a large part of them do so out of populism. So, with election season approaching, I need to do something to show that it was me who did it, so let's do something to show that I'm toughening the penalties and that I'm doing this so that the population can see that it's happening. But he takes it and does it in a populist way because he has legal counsel, he has someone behind him who is watching and saying: "Look, this here, this constitutionality will be discussed later and later this will be overturned." What is the practical reality of all this?
What's the big problem? We're going to work on it, we're going to have a process, there will be a public prosecutor, a police chief, a judge, they're going to work on a case based on a law that the Supreme Court will have to recognize as unconstitutional, because there's an error in the law. So what happens then? Everything we've done in terms of money and time will be absorbed by our mistakes. There will be an acquittal of a vagrant who should have been imprisoned by mistake. And then what happens?
impurity. But for the politician who did it there, I've already seen some posting on their Instagram accounts, saying, "No, I was the one who increased the law on such and such, I was the one who created such and such a situation that violates constitutional issues, and its constitutionality is already being questioned." So it's not like a lawsuit. How many times have I spoken here with Carla or with the guests about processes that have procedural flaws, processes that have procedural flaws, and that either we resolve the flaw or the entire process will continue and in two years we'll see a scoundrel who needs to be in jail, released because of a formal error in the process.
Yes. And I've said this in several cases here, including the case of that military police officer from Zel, who unfortunately, the lieutenant colonel, is being accused of killing her right at the beginning of this process. You were with me that day, including at SBT.
Yes, we were there and the decision came to us, the decision reached us.
I took the decision from my mother and said, "Man, there's a mistake here. The Military Police couldn't do this.
" I said, "There's a mistake here." "There's a mistake."
Oh, but they arrested him. Wonderful, whatever. He's in jail. I said, "But there's a mistake." The mistake at that time was that military justice and common justice were discussing the same thing at the same time.
Two different judges giving different decisions on the same case. In other words, there's a procedural flaw. And if these flaws continue, what will happen later on? Look, there's a mistake, it starts from scratch. And when it starts from scratch, what's happening? Oh, but it's impossible to investigate again. If it's impossible to investigate again, it's impossible to gather evidence because the process has already been annulled. The process is over, the guy is on the street. Then a scoundrel who killed his wife will be released, acquitted, because there's a procedural error. We have to resolve this.
The justice system, our legislators, cannot think that to satisfy something social they can rush through this.
So this issue of changing the law, there have been a lot of alterations that Professor Auri, for example, and other jurists are... Saying: "Dude, there's me, it's a legal aberration." That's it. This issue you raised here is like the organized crime law, which has had several changes. Many are saying : "Look, folks, but this article of the law is totally unconstitutional, and then what happens?" "It will lead to annulment." So let's suppose someone was arrested for this reason. Article such-and-such of law X is unconstitutional, they were arrested, and the process goes to the end. Then the Supreme Court says: "But this law is unconstitutional, what happens to everyone who was arrested?" That 's it. So, in this case of fraud, either we start thinking in a way that truly has an adequate social response, as the doctor said, annulment, there's no point in getting upset about it. It's a very important legal issue. Yes, right? The penalties, just to keep people informed, uh, the base penalty is 1 to 8 years, and when it's article 171, which is fraud, committed through electronic means, the penalty goes to four to eight years. What is expected here? That these people are effectively imprisoned, because we see gangs like this of digital crimes, uh-huh, who are arrested in flagrante delicto, but are released at the first hearing or at the hearing of... Custody. Why? Because considering the amount of the sentence imposed, and given that this person will likely serve their sentence in an open or semi-open regime, preventive detention cannot exacerbate the actual serving of the sentence.
So I have no reason to keep this person in preventive detention. What is preventive detention? While it's being investigated whether the person is guilty or not, they are held in preventive detention.
I can't keep them in preventive detention because if they are convicted, they could even serve their sentence in a semi-open or open regime.
Preventive detention cannot be harsher, and then these people are released.
Released today, tomorrow they're committing the crime again. So in this case, what did the legislator intend here? To impose a harsher penalty that authorizes even the decree of preventive detention, because in the event of a conviction, they could indeed be sentenced to a closed regime. So it authorizes preventive detention at this moment because they would already be there, without an eventual conviction, serving their sentence.
In practice, that's what they think, right?
Uh-huh. And I think that in this case, in article 171 Regarding fraud and scams in electronic media, the legislator's stance was correct in one sense because there was a feeling of impunity. What I saw, okay? The criminals, they left the streets of robbery, not that they left. The more articulate criminal, who had a history of crime, left and went to commit fraud because they realized that the penalty for fraud was less severe.
And that they wouldn't go to jail.
Uh-huh. And the profitability of that was greater.
Uh-huh.
So they went to that method, and the state couldn't handle the investigation.
We still see a lack of preparedness in the police regarding the investigation of these cases.
Excuse me, police, but in practice I see few police officers prepared to effectively investigate. They can't trace the money.
Uh-huh. The money mule who lent the account will make a non-prosecution agreement and won't be held criminally responsible.
And in the end there was this feeling: "Oh, it's okay, it's a crime that won't amount to anything." "If you get arrested, you spend six months in semi-open custody, eight months in semi-open custody, and then you come back and commit the crime again.
" So it was a crime that paid off. So, thinking about that, I think the legislator took the right stance in toughening the penalties for this type of crime.
Yes. Uh-huh. Yes, that's even a procedural issue in fraud crimes.
And I'll tell you that even in my master's degree, I worked on theses about the notary and the psychopath, precisely because I always found them to be a very interesting figure in crime.
It's the guy who takes thousands of reais from you without laying a finger on you.
And often it's a guy who leaves your house laughing, talking to you, and you're hugging him. It's a very interesting notary in that sense. And it's precisely in this case that we have weak legislation because it's a crime without violence, theoretically, which is what the legislator understands, it's a crime of today's digital ones with gigantic difficulties in tracing. So let's take, for example, the crime of Today's platforms, those investment platforms that people recommend to each other, turn out to be pyramid schemes or scams. When we investigate, we find ourselves dealing with phantom accounts or cryptocurrency scams, and the police say, "I don't have the means to investigate." Facebook makes it very, very difficult to access information. We need court orders against Facebook, for example, to access accounts. We need court orders against fintech companies so that a judge compels access to the accounts. In other words, criminal fraud, first of all, is a complex crime to investigate, depending on its scale, like the case of this young woman we were talking about. It's very, very, very difficult to investigate. Why? Because theoretically, we 'll now need to consider several pieces of information that we were discussing earlier, okay? What needs to be done? What doesn't need to be done? Are people involved? Are people not involved? How does that work? And then, even if we have a police investigation, we have to see if we can... To actually achieve real punishment for her, because in the end, even with this change for specific criminal offenses, there are legal acts that don't have a real punishment, and then nobody is satisfied with anything, because there's no real punishment, the person doesn't really stay in prison until the end, suffering as they should, and there's no return of the money, because the justice system says: "Okay, the loss is over." Yes, that's a very crazy issue with this whole thing about injustice, right?
Yes, yes, yes. Because in reality, the victim just wants their money back, right?
The victim just wants their money back.
Exactly. So, it's very difficult, very difficult. I know some people get outraged, and that's okay, right? Be outraged, that's it. When we talk about the law, that's it. Not that I don't like it, I'm telling you because that's what the law says, and everything is alright. For me, we should already be discussing petty theft in Brazil. For a long time now, my opinion on serious crimes, like proven abuse, right? Other serious crimes against children. For me, many things should change, and change drastically.
But between wanting things to happen, there's a gigantic world of difference, precisely these important issues.
Now let's delve a little further into this case, before getting into the case in Spain, the case of Gé in Spain, an important point: the scammer always changes his tune, and here's a matter of social legal theory in two points. To convince the person he's scamming, he dresses well, he talks well, he's rarely someone who lacks articulation, and every legal author says: "Only those who want a different advantage that doesn't exist in the market fall into the trap of scamming."
In this case, do you think that in some way the people who gave the jewelry to them saw an advantage that didn't exist in the market? A sale at a much higher value, a larger tax discount? Do you think there was what is called the conscious intent of the victim, who also wanted an advantage? Right?
I don't agree with that, okay? Sometimes it 's not. Sometimes it really is, I'll take a case I handled as a parameter here, an investment a client made in biotechnology to produce algae. The proposal was very good, but the purpose of the resources she deposited in the investment was for another reason, it was for the personal use of the main founder of the business. In this case, I don't think that perhaps the owners of the jewel were seeking an undue advantage or a greater profit and therefore were greedy. Sometimes not.
Uh-huh.
Because you see that here she didn't promise advantages. She promised that she would sell. She promised that she would sell. She didn't promise anything. I don't believe she promised anything more, you understand?
Uh-huh. It's part of the business. She diverted the purpose herself.
Uh-huh.
Because then you end up placing some of the blame on the victim. Yes.
I don't really agree with that, you know?
Sometimes the fault isn't the victim's, these Investment platforms. Okay, right, folks? You're going to invest in trading that gives you a 5%, 10% monthly profit, you have to, for God's sake, study a little bit about the financial market, because this happens.
Uh-huh.
Right? Look, I invested here because this investor told me I'd earn 5% a month. That's what's practiced in the economy, isn't it? So then you're really looking for an unfair advantage, you're trying to be the smart one in the story, and then okay, you fell for the scam. But it's not always like that.
Sometimes the person is investing in something solid. It's really the person who's scamming who has bad intentions.
Uh-huh. I don't agree with that position.
Yes, it's an important position. I think many people defend it.
Including in the case of financial scams, there's a very strong defense.
Even when you go to court hearings, this case is interesting. I've been there with some victims. In criminal hearings, the prosecutor kind of throws shade at the platform. The prosecutor kind of gives these jabs, you know, like, " It's mine too, right? My 20% monthly investment, only you thought that existed." And so, but I even think about this part, you know, because if you're in the financial market, if you're investing, you have to at least study the minimum to be able to put your money there. You know that's not what any bank practices, not even Banco Master.
Uh-huh.
We can bring up the case of Banco Master.
Sure.
I know that when the bank started offering investments, they were offering 2.5%, 3.5% fixed, pre-fixed, right?
Uh-huh.
And I have, for example, an acquaintance who invested 2 million because it was a return. I looked at it right away and said: "What kind of bank is that?" "Those are the banks we're used to dealing with, the most popular banks." No, no, no. They're doing what 's commercially viable in the market. No, they're not. They're promising a much higher return.
So, there's always this issue of someone trying to get ahead of everyone else. That's why many people invested in Banco Master, profited for a while, and they couldn't perpetuate it because their profit was much higher. The profit I'm talking about is the percentage on top of what was invested there. Uh-huh. Which was much higher than what Banco Seguros, Banco do Brasil, Caixa Econômica, Itaú, the banks we're used to dealing with, offered. So, you have to be a little cautious so you don't think you're the only lucky star and that you're the only one who saw the light. It doesn't happen like that either.
But not all types of scams are like that, right?
It depends a lot on the modus operandi of whoever is involved. Involved.
This is a question, and I say this even as a provocation, okay? As I said here, my role is to provoke and encourage people to debate issues, because my role here is to provide information.
So I come and say, I drop the bomb, the doctor has to talk about the bomb, and that's what happens. And you also say that the bomb insults, argues, and everything is fine. That's how it works. But before dropping the bomb, before arguing, your like, please, please. Here I see that we need more likes here.
Paulo is here in the next room watching, asking me to give your very important like so that we can continue to have this debate, agreeing or not, liking or not the information and the way the law is treated, we will continue to do so. Doctor, now let's move on to the hard case. I'm going to read it here for you. Ah, the case, just a very quick briefing, very quick indeed, because I know everyone here is doing very well. trained. I know that everyone who watches a case-by-case study is extremely sharp like that. And what I like most about case-by-case studies is precisely this potential that those who are watching, listening, and commenting raise as questions, because both the lawyers for the parties involved in the cases, and sometimes the delegates themselves, friends, I know, because they say they watch, looking at what you say, they say: "Wow, what an insight, I'm going to go down that path, I'm going to think about that too, because it's important, because it's not just because the person has one experience in law." I've been in law for almost 20 years, and I 'm the one who possesses all the possible information for the cases I handle.
Sometimes, when you tell me something, we both understand it and then we go ahead and do it. So let's talk about the case of Gisele, the Brazilian woman found dead in Spain. It remains shrouded in doubt, and new elements have begun to draw the attention of the authorities. Point. What I said at the beginning was that we were going to talk about camera footage, and now that's part of the line of investigation.
Until then, the last time I had been here, in Gisele's case, remembering that young woman who theoretically ended her own life by hanging herself from a door, as Carla Buckerk said, a door that, in Carla's view, and in my view, and in the view of the expert who came here that day, would very likely not have been strong enough to hold her weight. The issue, which was also explained by the forensic experts, is that hanging occurs when the person is strangled while dangling, and depending on where the strangulation occurs, the person freezes up, cannot scream, cannot defend themselves, cannot get up, but they struggle. And there were no marks from her struggling against the door, because the door was glass, so there were no marks from her hand struggling against the door. In other words, there were important points raised by the expert who came here, which really caught my attention. And today these images surfaced, doctor, these points of information where her boyfriend appears saying some things that caught everyone's attention. And the lawyer, as I said, her lawyer, the family is extremely combative, Dr. Karina, and she has been raising and insisting on the argument that it wasn't a suicide, that it was a homicide, probably committed based on information provided by the boyfriend.
Now I would like the production team to put it on so we can watch it, and then I'll start discussing it with the doctor. Can you put it on, production team?
I joined the training session, now I'm going to train, I'll be back here in a little while, okay?
It's just that I feel like sleeping tonight, amin.
Kiss. Call bye.
I arrived here at the gym, I think there's a guy who fell into the toilet here.
He's [ __ ] rocks.
You must still be sleeping. Do you want to go to the market with me after I leave the gym, or do you want to stay home?
Let's get up, let's learn. Let's go.
Who wants bread? Who wants bread? Do you want bread?
Who wants bread? Do you want bread? I'm feeling a nice little chill here.
Imagine being so excited that I even forgot to comb my hair. Kiss. Goodbye. Goodbye. Were you able to understand and actually hear what happened?
Comment here. If you're watching, leave a comment below. Post it here in the chat.
Given these audio recordings, what can you observe in relation to this?
In your minds, is this case still considered a case of self-destruction, or has it already ceased to be?
Because this case is important for us to be able to discuss, because the lawyer, Dr. Karina, who is, as the doctor said, brilliantly working on this case, is handling an extremely difficult case. Why are they difficult? I'm telling you, what you say here, what you comment on, is so important. And I'm sure the doctor is watching, post it here so we can have the information, because it's a case that demands more than our justice system, it demands the goodwill of a foreign justice system in this investigation as well. With these audios now, with this information that you just watched, are we still talking about a possible suicide, or have we already started to look at this case as, wait a minute, it really needs to be investigated as a homicide, doctor?
Yes, I even checked, he says: "I did n't kill you, you son of a [ __ ]."
All good. He says there that he didn't kill her, but that's a very unexpected statement, out of context for that situation where someone says they're surprised to see their girlfriend dead, that he's going to the gym and he sends several messages.
Oh, sweetheart, so affectionate, you know? Uh-huh. They seem like a new couple. And then he goes back outside, he's completely desperate because he finds out she's there, dead, and then he goes inside and stays there. He didn't imagine it would be possible to capture the audio. He says: "I did n't kill you, you son of a [ __ ]." That's right, it's totally out of context.
And then it comes up that the doctor was actually very categorical in an interview that she doesn't affirm it, but she raises a possible line of investigation. Uh-huh.
Because this audio provides a different context, not just someone who's shocked to see that his girlfriend, to whom he sent eight audio messages and two photos while he was leaving for the gym, and then said he stopped at the supermarket, that he was super in love, and then he makes that whole scene and calls the neighbor and can't get through. Look, I'm already saying that I'm making the whole scene.
No, that's normal.
When I wanted to take the lead, but I've already taken the lead. Opinion, opinion, opinion, right? I have my opinion too. I think it was all an act.
And then he makes that whole scene and he sees his fiancée, girlfriend, I don't know, I lost it here, dead. And he says: "I didn't kill you, you son of a [ __ ]."
I don't know. And what strikes me as odd, doctor, is that she says she didn't want to leave the house. She didn't want to go to the gym, she didn't want to go to the market. Why was n't she willing to carry out her normal activities? And it seems he says this in a news report, that she did n't want to leave the house. Was this woman already unconscious?
Psychological violence, huh, physical violence? Was she depressed? Uh-huh. What was really going on there? And then, in the messages, he goes days without sending a message because they were only together for two days, really. Uh-huh.
We need to understand what happened there.
But look, I'm going to express my opinion, and I do it very carefully, as I said, because here I only have an opposition to questioning, right?
But it is a crime, it is an act that really catches my attention, as the doctor says. I completely agree.
And I know that everyone has a different reaction when faced with a harrowing scene, such as encountering someone who has died, especially if they were in a situation of self-harm. It's very, very difficult for us to say that everyone reacts differently, and so on. But I find it highly unlikely that a boyfriend's reaction upon arriving home to find his girlfriend hanging, dead, would be that way.
That statement wouldn't make any sense in that relationship. I didn't see despair, I didn't see crying, I didn't, no.
I saw his cry in the sense that we just described here. It 's not natural. I don't understand how that can be natural. Obviously, with a caveat. Each person reacts differently when faced with that situation.
But then it takes days to talk to the family, to give them a message. One thing that really caught my attention, and to this day, I ca n't get this part out of my head, is that I do n't understand why someone would remove their lower body hair solely to commit self-destruction.
What's the point of that, right? If I can't see someone who spoke, no, now I'm going to, I'm going to commit suicide, I'm going to exterminate them.
Take off your bottom clothes, leaving only your top clothes on; it takes some work to throw the cord over the door, close it, and hang on to it. In other words, what's the point of all this? That would n't make sense. What caught my attention, this was a finding by Dr. Michele, a delegate who was here with me that day, a discussion that it could be the kind of sexual act that constricts oxygen, causing the person to faint while having sex. Like, oh, that could be it. And then he passed by, and later I asked him about that little paper too, if he went over the limit, and she fainted, he thought she was dead because there was a very large drop in oxygenation. And then he tried to simulate this issue with this audio of his now, uh, it gives me a bit more support for this hypothesis.
Yes, I hadn't thought of that. Because, uh, could it be that they were in a situation where it happened between the two of them, and then, with that situation, he said, "I didn't kill you, did I, you son of a [ __ ]," as he calls himself? And then he goes to try and simulate a scenario, actually hanging it on the door, because it's not audio of someone who just killed someone, right? Because, theoretically, if he doesn't know he's being filmed, and that the outside footage doesn't pick up his audio, why would he reinforce that information? Like, I didn't kill you, you son of a [ __ ]. So, in my view, this isn't an audio recording of someone who initially encountered a loved one hanging on a door. It doesn't make sense. But it's not theoretically the audio either, unless he's faking it, knowing it's picked up outside, saying: "Look, he wouldn't say that, he didn't even imagine it, because otherwise he would have said things there that would reinforce his theory that he went to the gym and came back.
There are several possibilities, right? I 'm even thinking about the possibility of him trying to blame the other two people she lived with, because it was rumored that she even installed an electronic lock because she was feeling uncomfortable with the other two people who lived there.
Uh-huh.
I think, in my opinion, that if the responsibility really was his, he may have tried to fake it.
Uh-huh. And there's also the case of couples fighting, I had a case like that, Anderson Rodrigues, Anderson Rodrigues Leitão, he was accused of killing one of Faustão's dancers. And he says that in the middle of the fight, he discovered a guy sending messages on her cell phone and in the middle of the fight he goes after her and he presses the button. But he didn't want to take her life. He was He was really angry, but he squeezed so hard that she, unfortunately, didn't lose her life there. And he regrets it. He doesn't think he'll stay with her body there for two days thinking about what he's going to do, and only then will he go down and call the police.
So, sometimes when he says, " Look, I didn't kill you," it's because maybe in that first moment he didn't intend to, maybe because he was having sex, or maybe because in a fight he grabbed her very hard, leading to her being strangled, right?
But many things could have happened, but that statement isn't from someone who really wanted to kill her. I'm not saying to dismiss the intent, okay? Nor am I saying he didn't want to kill her, innocent, but something happened there that maybe wasn't his first intention, but it was what happened, it could be because of that, because of the mark there, right? It looks like there was one, I saw a doctor, that one side seemed to be more compressed than the other, right? I did n't get to see those photos, and that's how theories started to emerge in my mind. Let me tell you, the viewers, if you think about his statement, "I didn't want to kill you, you son of a [ __ ]," within this context, what does that make you think? Why did the doctor say that? It doesn't sound like someone who finds the body of a girlfriend hanging there, someone they're newly in love with, living with. And it does n't sound like an audio recording of someone saying, "I just killed her, I'm going to plan it the way I have to do it."
Could it really have been an argument where he acted rashly and then she fainted? Then he says, "Wait, let me think of a way to present it here that makes it seem like a suicide or something like that," because it starts with this audio, and this audio was revealed by an expert hired by the lawyer, by Gisele's family, who brought this information, and this information has thrown a lot of questions at me now, because it's not a common audio recording of someone who's killing someone, of someone who just killed someone, it's not him. He would have, you know, we would have heard other things, maybe there. It really seems to me that what we're talking about was premeditated malice; perhaps he did something without the initial intention, and it ended up happening that way, and then he hangs her to provoke this scenario.
But when you mentioned the information about the marks on the neck, were they strangulation marks, or were they marks that I didn't actually see, that I didn't receive that information about? Did you produce these photos? There's a news report I saw where a woman talks about the marks.
Let me take a look here.
That's because we haven't received that information from those brands, because those brands will be conducting the indirect analysis. It will be extremely important to know, because regarding strangulation, the woman who came here spoke with Carla that day, she explained to us in a certain way that the marks left on the neck from strangulation or hanging with a rope or object are extremely different. And the expert, as soon as he looks, he can identify the case of the other Gisele there, uh, the policewoman, there were marks that are his fingerprints on her neck. So there are the marks, when the forensics team went there and revealed this, there are the marks, there's his thumb on her throat, and if it was with a wire, with a rope, it would be different. In the case of PC Siqueira as well, the private expert report mentions this difference based on the brand's photos, right?
Did you manage to find it?
Well, what I saw here is this: the lawyer gave an interview and she said that the mark only appeared on one side of the neck. There were two types of juice available. What are two juices? The marks from the strangulation, or the thread that remains, the mark is called juice, right?
That. So, there were two juices present, and the extremity of the lesion would be quite thick at the end, you understand?
Thick here and thin here.
Look, either the body leaned to one side or someone pressed harder on one side. We've seen this before.
Yes. What Aita said here that day was very interesting, because as she spoke, we were, you know, creating these theories and questioning this information. Well, Carla asked her, but if she had been hanging, would n't she have been able to reach out and remove the rope, or something like that?
Yes, as long as it hadn't pressed a specific nerve that almost makes you shut down. Because when you have that mark that tightens and creates that problem, you stop, you don't move anymore, you just stay there, you're agonizing, but you're just struggling. You no longer have the strength to lift your hand.
What if she was unconscious when she was placed there? That was a question we asked. If he were unconscious, would the marks of that unconsciousness also appear? And then the woman said, when a person is strangled or choked, sorry, with a pillow, for example, for example, if it were a sexual act, where he put the pillow on her head and pressed down to suffocate her and reduce oxygen, it leaves marks on her mouth, so when she tries to get away, she would hurt herself, so her mouth is injured, her lips are injured, blood spurts appear in her eyes, because that's how choking occurs. So these are points that the forensic investigation needs to reveal, because the cause of death, the way in which it happened, will be revealed.
We asked, but what if she were hung up afterwards? In other words, she died beforehand, for what reason, asphyxiation, I don't know, and if he had hung her up, he would also have been able to observe it, because how would that mark appear? She said, "Look, it becomes interesting because the colors change, because when oxygen stops, the mark becomes different, so the coloration changes. So all of this will have to be revealed by the forensics team."
So, even though we have important points here that need to be questioned by the forensics team, what leads us to believe now, without the forensics report in hand, is why his actions are so suspicious.
Yes. Why does he have to put it here first, now? Danilo put it there, he ran away, right? We put it here, okay?
So, let's go. person who disappeared. Then he spoke to his mother-in-law, saying "Hi mother-in-law," which wasn't something he usually did.
Then he returns to Brazil, leaving behind the most important belongings for his family, which are her scent, her clothes, handing over only her cell phone without the SIM card being replaced, with the information already stored, since it's no longer consistent. Does all of this in your mind, doctor, support, for example, a request for preventive detention if it were here in Brazil? Look, the fact that he ran away corroborates it, right? The fact that he fled corroborates this; I didn't have that information. Then it was left to one of our dear followers here on Paulo's channel who's telling us, "Don't go public with this either."
If you clarify things, if you talk about it, do you think that 's a defense strategy?
No, but I think he gave an interview to some channel, you know? If I'm not mistaken, he gave an interview to some guy, to some channel. He gave his version of events as a victim who was shaken, but after that audio recording, he didn't speak out again.
What happens? There are several assumptions. Do you remember the first time we were on air together, when we were on the Colonel's case? Uh-huh.
And I caught that in the middle.
This investigation lasted for 30 days.
It was 30 days, wasn't it? It is believed that this young woman took her own life. And then came the forensic examination, and on the day that I think we recorded together, the autopsy report had just been released. Uh-huh. And then you even gave me a lesson about it, because I remember the way the shot hit, the blood flowed to one side and she was lying on the other side and had marks on her neck.
On the neck.
This point is crucial for us to understand what happened.
If these marks on the neck start stronger in one part of the neck and gradually become thinner, then I believe so, right? I'm not an expert, I'm not trained in forensics, but if the person has their throat slit, perhaps the biggest mark should be here. No, she was going forward, could she have gone to the side?
And there's an important point: he altered the crime scene, right? He switched the chairs around. Why did he switch the chairs around? Why does n't he remove the woman's body? He didn't remove the woman's body, he left it there; he asks for help, he says he wouldn't be able to do it. Seriously, he's not capable of getting her out of bed and putting her back in bed? So, these are things like, he asks for help, he doesn't want to go in there alone, then he goes in and stays for 4 minutes. What was he doing there? 4 minutes. And then there was one of the people who lived with her, he speaks French, he did n't want to help at the time, he was too scared. And everyone's reaction is fine. But he says that he even altered the crime scene, moved chairs around, and put in a wheelchair. Did Liv want to show that she climbed onto the wheelchair and hanged herself? Well, that's how it is, looking at all of this, you know, obviously, I'm very careful nowadays, because of my experience in law, about being hasty in many things. Sometimes people even like to point the finger, right? But I'm very careful. I have been a professor of criminal law for many years, and I have been teaching since the time when the "base school" argument was discussed as a legal error, which was one of the biggest journalistic mistakes in the country. And those who are older here know what I'm talking about regarding the school case, which was that instance of the police chief, seeking media attention and pointing the finger at an abuse that never happened at a preschool. And even today these people suffer the consequences, right? People who died after being accused of child sexual abuse when it never happened.
Yes.
So we are very careful. And now, just one more thing: these are points that really catch my attention.
When the lawyer joined us live here, she brought up the information, and said, " Look, this information doesn't add up." And he doesn't bring anything, according to what he presented at that moment, that corroborates the contrary. Why?
Like now, with this audio they managed to get in such a brilliant way. It's a phenomenal, private investigation that's happening.
Yes. It 's not common, it's not common in the legal profession, is it? I love seeing extremely combative and proactive lawyers who go after things and say, "Oh, that's the police's job, for crying out loud!"
That's also part of the lawyer's role. A lawyer is not part of the procedural act itself; they have to help, they have to be proactive. If you think something is wrong, you have to go there and knock, you have to go there and show them. So, they conducted a private investigation and are bringing forth information that, for example, this audio, man, I couldn't get.
I came in the car, right? So, it takes an hour to get here. Our Lady also comes from where.
Yes.
And I was listening to the audio, I listened to it a few times, and I thought: "Man, but why, right?
Why did he say that? Why did n't he treat the situation as someone who is actually in love with his mother-in-law?"
So, we're not literally pointing the finger, you did it, we're not making any definitive judgments.
Yes. And there's another side to it. If he really intended to kill and create that whole scene, why does he come and say, "Why did I?" Because he says, "I didn't kill you, you son of a [ __ ]." Uh-huh. This is not an audio recording, it is not the speech of someone who intended to kill and who was aware of what they had done.
And that opens up the possibility of several things that could have happened there.
Was it an accident? Did he lose control in the middle of a fight? We do n't know. We don't want to create a financial burden, we don't want to put them in the dock before the right time, but this will certainly open a parallel line of investigation.
In my opinion, the direction of the investigation changes at this point and focuses entirely on him.
They will try to understand what this boy did and why he said that. Uh-huh. So, one question: I don't know how the investigation is going in Spain.
We have very piecemeal information about all of this. When we were talking about this subject, several things caught my attention. I made several provocative remarks to my fellow lawyers.
Dr. Michele, who was also here, was a police officer. If this investigation, up until now, was based on poorly done information, done haphazardly, it was because it involved a Brazilian woman, right? So why haven't so many important things been questioned like this? How can you let the guy leave the country in the middle of a discussion like that, you know? Without rhyme or reason. Hey, wait a minute, bring the guy here, listen, things are strange, take his passport, wait a minute, let's understand this better. No, take your cell phone with you. Then he said, "But okay, her cell phone had already been seen." No, the character has to stay until the end because there are important situations. What was he saying? What did he delete? What chip did he switch? These are things that even Michael, who is also an expert in information, didn't mention.
He said: "If he changed his mind and has the cell phone in his possession, we can access that information. We'll know that he made an alteration to document X, Y, Z sometime in the past.
Then he comes back here with the document, that is, with the device. If he returns to Brazil with the device, we have to understand one thing. If he returns to Brazil with this device, and the forensic examination wasn't done correctly, even if he handed it over now, the chain of custody is broken. Yes, the chain of custody. And that's interesting, isn't it? It's sad that people, I know many people stop to think, 'But it seems like the lawyer is only pointing out errors,' but it's these errors that invalidate the process.
Yes. And that could be essential for us to clarify the facts. His side should have been seized at that moment, along with everyone else's.
Exactly.
He was the last person who had contact with the victim. So his cell phone should have been seized. But what I perceive, okay? I've been to [the court] a few times..." Spain. One of my best friends lives there, actually.
Valencia is a medium-sized city, not a very big city, but it's different. The justice system there is different for Brazilians.
I see that difference. So, it could be negligence. We even had a case in Portugal recently where a child was a victim of a crime, and Portugal didn't want to treat it the same way because it involved a Brazilian. The police care wasn't the same because it involved a Brazilian.
Spain isn't as xenophobic in that way, but it could be something that has led to the police... we've been demanding answers because it's been 30 days already, right? It seems, I think it's been more than 30 days. And the report hasn't come out yet. The reports haven't come out yet.
And that's essential to be able to clarify things. So, Brazilian society has been demanding answers, the lawyer has been demanding answers, but there has been a lack of compassion and there were failures in that first moment, or due to a lack of training for the police officers, because it's a city, Valencia is a coastal city, we don't know what kind of situation it is. How many police officers are there, what is the capacity of those officers there, or is it because they are Brazilian and not in the country that they are there? We have to see if they are there legally or illegally, right? And all of that will perhaps dictate the conduct.
The expert who was here, the expert Amanda, said: "Perhaps, this forensic error is due to a lack of experience, as it's a place that doesn't have as much crime as we have today."
And she said: "I may be trained in forensics." She is a professional forensic expert in the police force, if I'm not mistaken, from Alagoas, I don't remember exactly, but she is a criminal forensics expert. She said: "What gives me the impact of knowing what happened is my experience." So, after seeing hundreds of similar crimes, I go there and say, "Hmm, this is such and such a thing." And she said, "Oh, maybe the fact that they arrived there and initially thought it really was a suicide bombing is the experience." Like, they're not used to this outlandish act of fabricating a crime. He arrived there and saw a person hanging, and the boyfriend said, "Look, unfortunately, he ended up committing suicide." He considered that and that was the end of it. But in my mind, it's such an absurd flaw, right? And so again I'm going to, I'm going to, I'm going to be a little more punctual, like the doctor was. I think it has a bit to do with not being a native speaker, you know? Due to not being Spanish.
Well, if that were the case, maybe the investigation would have taken a different turn, it might have been a bit more thorough from the start. Such essential information would not have been disseminated in the way it was for everyone involved. When you have a very well-done investigation, you condemn whoever truly deserves to be condemned, but you also acquit when you have to. A well-conducted investigation is good for everyone.
Some lawyers say things like, "Oh no, it has to be a dirty investigation."
Terrible. You can put your client in jail, man, with a bad investigation, right? And there are lawyers who defend this very strongly. No, it has to be a bad investigation, no.
Bad investigation, no. It's a very good investigation. And then later on I'll discuss things procedurally. The investigation is so poor in this case, let's suppose it really starts now, that it's with her and not him. Okay, so we put a guy in jail who didn't deserve it. Perhaps it was, let's suppose it was an incident. He didn't know how to react at the time and created this. Not that this absolves him of responsibility, but it's completely different from someone who planned it. Yes, it will need to be, there's a lot to investigate. The Spanish police have been slow, unfortunately we depend on them, but I think this case will be discussed again on a case-by-case basis, because I think that as soon as the forensic report comes out, we will have a revelation of what really happened and how this young woman died. And I'm going to make two important points here, and then I'll move on to the doctor so she can explain about it. The two Gisele cases are only taking this investigative turn because both families were incredibly honest. Yes yes.
Look, I'm going to tell you something.
Looking at these investigations, doctor, if it weren't for families who, well, took the reins to do it, both would already be filed away as self- termination? And truth. And truth. The family went looking for him, but the family wasn't satisfied because the family knew, right?
In Gisele's case, her mother gave an interview where she said, "I know my daughter, I know my daughter wouldn't take her own life." And once again, a family's discontent is bringing the real truth to light and clearing the image of their own daughter, who passed away. Congratulations to these families, it 's not easy. You have to have a lot of courage, because sometimes knowing the truth might hurt more, right? Uh-huh.
But the truth sets you free. So I think it's in this sense and on this basis that these families are seeking the truth and believing.
Gisele's mother said, "I believe in my daughter, I know my daughter." And that's precisely why she went after them, right?
And once again, a disgruntled family is going after the truth. And may the truth come out, may the truth come out so that justice may be done, regardless of who committed this crime or not. Uh-huh. Because this is fundamental, and that's why I wanted to bring this up here, towards the end of our chat, so that the doctor could talk more about the importance of family first and foremost.
So, if you have the feeling that things are n't going the way you think they did, it's not just mere dissatisfaction, because it's natural for a father or mother to sometimes be dissatisfied with the investigation and say, "No, it's not."
But if you feel that something happened and is being investigated the wrong way, it's important for the family to have a professional on their side to conduct this investigation. Because in Gisele's case, we followed this situation very closely, because we were at SBT as commentators on Alô Você, and the family was bringing in a lot of information. The family wanted it to have visibility, the family was talking to the journalist, the family was going after information, and as a professional, with the family's lawyer doing an enormous job so that there could be a proper investigation. If it weren't for that, if the family weren't like that, I doubt it. As I said, I've been in this field for 20 years.
I've seen hundreds of cases in my life, but this was one of the cases that most impressed me, because of the work the family put into demonstrating their case. That wasn't true.
My daughter did not commit suicide, neither in the case of Gisele from Spain nor in the case of Gisele from Brazil. Both families are there with combative lawyers showing up. So, in fact, doctor, what is the importance of a lawyer within a criminal investigation, within a criminal procedure, for the victim's family, which we only hear about from the defendant's family, right?
You hear a lot of talk about the defendant's lawyer, the defendant's lawyer, but a lawyer isn't just for the defendant.
How does that work?
Well, and even on that point, I can say that the law and lawyers defend themselves, they are divided into different schools of thought.
I really enjoy doing the instructional, preparatory part, the investigations for my clients. I do the same for both the victim and the accused. I think it's extremely important to have a combative lawyer who brings the real truth of the facts to the investigation. Uh-huh.
We still see many lawyers, excuse me, but to me unprepared, who believe that during the investigative phase, a lawyer cannot produce evidence, cannot be combative, because then you are exercising the defense, and defense is not possible during the investigation. Actually, this week I went to a police station and that's what I heard from a clerk. And then I corrected him, saying: "I'm not defending the client in the investigation because that 's not provided for by law. I'm bringing facts and evidence here that will reveal the truth. I'm corroborating the investigations.
And sometimes this corroboration will bring a client who is under investigation to the next level, turning them into a victim, which is what I've seen happen in the office.
It will bring the truth to that victim, who, without a lawyer by their side, wouldn't have been able to prove their case, arrest, and hold the real culprits accountable. Even going back to the crime of fraud, if you don't have a proactive lawyer who goes after it, requests bank secrecy waivers, gathers evidence, brings witnesses, and does that part, often the police station is overwhelmed with work and can't handle it.
That's the reality. Women's police stations are also overwhelmed with investigations and can't handle it. A woman goes there, she reports a rape, but then you have to gather witnesses, you have to request forensic evidence." From your cell phone, you have to put there, many times I even reconstruct the route, you know, that the rapist took, what they did that day, I do all that reconstruction and it's important. And the combative lawyer, he has to work on the investigation together with the police so as not to create a defense argument, like many lawyers say, right? "Oh doctor, but you 're doing this these days," I heard that a month or so ago, I saw it from a lawyer, "but then you're doing a defense." There is no defense during an investigation. It's not about defense, people. It's about bringing the real truth. Because the investigation is very important. It's the moment when the process begins and it's based on that, on the evidence produced in the investigation, that the police chief will prepare his report and the Public Prosecutor's Office will decide if the person, if there are indications there, can be charged and what the crime is classified as. So it's very important. Then I say that it's another more complicated phase, right? We go to the instruction phase, there's a prosecutor, there's a judge. And the production of evidence, in my opinion, becomes more limited. So, if you have an investigation with a complete investigative basis, a very good investigative basis, that will serve both the victim and provide proof.
In rape cases, speaking again, we often have women who come to the office and say: "Oh, but doctor, I don't have any proof, it's just my word, nobody saw anything."
And sometimes she goes there, gives her testimony, it's her word against the word of the aggressor.
And then, if there's no more evidence, in case of doubt, that person isn't even charged, there's no formal accusation. So it's important to have a combative lawyer. I really enjoy conducting investigations and I like this part of producing evidence. And we, as lawyers, need to update ourselves on this and be aware of our participation in the investigation, right?
Because we see many lawyers who still don't have this awareness, who sometimes just take the investigation, go there, take the client to be heard at the police station, accompany the proceedings, and that's it.
Uh-huh.
And then when it comes to the formal accusation... The client didn't present their version of events, or the victim couldn't prove their case, and then the guilty party remains innocent, and the victim feels wronged, and so it goes.
And it becomes a gigantic impunity, and that 's the truth, right? I'm being very careful about what I say because, as I mentioned, after I became a professor at 22, I started teaching at university at 22, so I encountered much older colleagues who had this view: "No, the investigation has to stay quiet, let the detective do it, okay?" You're saying to me, "If he messes up and later you manage to get him acquitted for the mistake, wonderful for you." But if the client is innocent, and the detective does something bad, it's worse for your client. We don't work for innocence at all costs and at all times. We are in society, we are citizens of life. Yes.
We work for the truth in a process. That's the great reality. The lawyer who works purely at any cost for the liberation of their client, in my opinion, is making a mistake, a social mistake.
So, I have to... To punish whoever truly deserves to be punished according to the existing law. Not to do things at any cost, pretending, doing, lying, doing, because then I overstep the bounds of a lawyer's role. Then I become an accomplice to the crime, right? And I'm very careful about that. A lawyer cannot be an accomplice to a crime. Oh, hide this here, pretend this here, lie about this here, do it, okay, but then I can't lay my head on the pillow and sleep peacefully. It's impossible for me. Let's work, I'll manage to do what the law says. And I'll tell you, the law says a lot, there are many good things to do on all sides. There's no need to invent things. And a combative lawyer is very, very, very important for this. If there weren't a combative lawyer, the Gisele Brazil case, the Gisele Spain case, would already be closed. That's for sure.
Congratulations to Dr. Karina.
Congratulations to Dr. Karina and congratulations to the doctor, I forgot his name, but also from the Gisele Brazil family case. The policewoman. Doctor, thank you so much for your presence, always, with so much legal knowledge to be able to speak with us.
It's a great pleasure to have you here with us. And to you who watched us today, who spoke, who argued, who commented, thank you very much. May you have a blessed week full of good things in your life. And oh, a kiss on the heart and see you next Monday. Da.
Vidéos Similaires
BREAKING: Judge Kathleen Issues Emergency Arrest Warrant After Trump Defies Order
Frontora
2K views•2026-05-29
8 Hidden Things About Mackenzie Shirilla Netflix's 'The Crash' Didn't Show You
MarvelousVideos
2K views•2026-05-28
MP Garnett Genuis warns Canada’s MAiD system has ‘gone too far’
WesternStandard
187 views•2026-05-28
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
EBK Jaaybo Won’t Be Going To Trial?! | Criminal Lawyer Reacts
floridadefenseteam
404 views•2026-05-29
OFFICE HOURS: The Theft of Black Brilliance... AI and Intellectual Property (w/ Lisa E. Davis)
marclamonthillnetwork
2K views•2026-05-29
