Civil Non-Prosecution Agreements: A Promising New Tool for Advancing Brazil’s Anticorruption Agenda

In late 2019, the Brazilian Congress passed an “anti-crime package” which included, among other things, an amendment to the Administrative Improbity Act that authorized a new form of “civil non-prosecution agreement” (known by its Portuguese initials, ANPC). Under an ANPC, prosecutors can reach civil agreements with individuals who voluntarily disclose their corrupt acts, thus avoiding the usual judicial proceedings for determining penalties under the Improbity Law. (To be clear, ANPCs are used to resolve civil matters and impose administrative sanctions, rather than to resolve criminal cases.) More recent amendments to the Improbity Act have strengthened this mechanism by giving prosecutors greater discretion to reach settlements with individuals accused of improbity.

This reform is a major change to the traditional Brazilian approach to administrative sanctions, which historically bars the settlement of any case involving corruption or improbity. That said, Brazil has already expanded the use of settlement agreements in other contexts. For example, in the context of enforcing criminal laws against corporations, the 2014 Clean Company Act (CCA) authorized so-called “leniency agreements,” under which prosecutors may offer to lower penalties to companies that self-disclosure wrongdoing and cooperate with the investigation. The ANPC mechanism is similar but different in a couple of important respects. First, the ANPC applies to individuals rather than firms. Second, while the CCA authorizes leniency agreements only in cases where the company discloses information about other unlawful activities and thus helps the investigation, an ANPC may be issued as long as the individual agrees to reform her own conduct, even if she does not provide additional information that is useful in ongoing investigations. On the other hand, similarly to leniency agreements, the enforcement authorities need not seek judicial approval to resolve a case via ANPC, so long as the agreement is reached before the beginning of a judicial proceeding. (If a formal proceeding has already begun, then the judge would still need to sign off on the termination of that proceeding.)

Although ANPCs have yet to be used on large scale, this tool holds great promise for substantially improving Brazil’s effective enforcement of its anticorruption laws, for several reasons:

Continue reading

The Brazilian Supreme Court’s Most Recent Ruling in the Lula Case Reveals the Court’s Own Bias

Back in 2017, a Brazilian court convicted former President Lula for corruption offenses in connection with a seaside apartment that Lula allegedly received as a bribe from a construction firm. In 2019, he was again found guilty of a corruption offense in a separate trial, this time for receiving bribes in the form of improvements to his country house. And he faced other corruption charges as well, including an indictment in which Odebrecht—a major construction firm and one of the most significant players in the Car Wash scandal— allegedly bribed Lula by agreeing to construct a headquarters for his foundation, the Lula Institute. The principal evidence for this latter accusation was acquired by prosecutors as part of a so-called “leniency agreement” with Odebrecht. In Brazil, leniency agreements are negotiated settlements, regulated by the Clean Company Act (CCA), in which companies voluntarily agree to confess unlawful conduct, pay penalties, and take other remedial action—including cooperating with prosecutors by providing evidence against other wrongdoers—and, in return, the companies have their sanctions and fines reduced (see, for example, here, here, and here). Such agreements have been critical to the success of the Car Wash Operation, and more generally to the effectiveness of Brazil’s fight against corruption.

But this past June, the Brazilian Supreme Court decided to nullify the evidence against Lula that had been collected under the Odebrecht leniency agreement (here). The Court’s ruling was not only legally flawed, but its reasoning, if accepted, threatens to undo dozens of prior corruption convictions and to create a cloud of uncertainty surrounding the validity of evidence obtained in leniency agreements. Such a ruling would needlessly undermine the ability of Brazilian prosecutors and courts to fight corruption in the future. Of course, the Court may not actually adhere to its legal reasoning in future cases—but that only underscores another problem: though the Brazilian Supreme Court has criticized lower court proceedings as biased against Lula, the Court’s own conduct, particularly in the most recent case, suggests an unacceptable bias in Lula’s favor.

Continue reading

Narrowing the Scope of Brazil’s Administrative Improbity Law: Why the New Limits Will Strengthen, Not Weaken, the Law’s Efficacy

Brazil’s 1992 Administrative Improbity Law, which authorized severe sanctions on government agents who commit “acts against the public administration,” was the first Brazilian statute specifically targeted at government corruption. Last year, Brazil adopted extensive amendments to this law, many of which were controversial. In a recent post, I criticized the amendment that reduced the number of institutions responsible for enforcing the Improbity Law. But other controversial amendments to the law are, in my view, positive developments. In particular, I want to defend two other amendments that critics have asserted weaken the law:

  • First, under the original version of the Improbity Law, a public official could be sanctioned for negligent behavior that caused damage to the public treasury. Under the amended version of the law, only intentional acts can be considered administrative improbity punishable under this statute.
  • Second, the original version of the law listed ten forms of administrative misconduct that would constitute “violations of the principles of public administration,” but, importantly, that list was not exclusive. Rather, the listed forms of misconduct were presented only as examples. This meant that law enforcers could, and often did, bring an action under the Improbity Law for conduct that, in the enforcer’s view, violated a “principle of public administration,” such as morality and equity, even if the particular form of alleged improbity was not included as one of the specifically listed forms of misconduct in the statute. The amended law constrains enforcement discretion by establishing a well-defined and restricted list of acts that qualify as violations of the principles of public administration.

Critics, including many anticorruption advocates, assert that these changes unduly narrow the scope of the law, thereby undermining one of Brazil’s most important anticorruption instruments. These concerns, while understandable, are misplaced: Both of the above amendments improve the law by ensuring that it is administered fairly and used to target serious corrupt acts, rather than being wielded as a political weapon to punish partisan adversaries for good-faith mistakes.

Continue reading

How to Reform Brazil’s Freedom of Information Regime

Ten years ago, Brazil enacted its Access to Information Law, which implements the constitutional guarantee of the right to information. Under the law, certain government data must be proactively disclosed, and other information must be provided upon the request of a member of the public, without the requester needing to show any special reason or justification. This law was supplemented with the enactment, last March, of the Digital Government Law, which streamlines the procedures for information requests, clarifies the government’s obligations to provide information in an open format that fulfills completeness, quality, and integrity requirements, and includes a non-exhaustive list of data that must be disclosed.

These laws, like other freedom of information laws, are intended to make government more responsive and accountable and to help fight corruption by making it easier for citizens, journalists, advocacy groups, and prosecutors to scrutinize and analyze government information for evidence of suspicious activity. But while the laws are very detailed about the rules for disclosing information upon request, the law’s provisions on proactive disclosure are not sufficiently specific or effective. And proactive disclosure is quite important. After all, while the right to request information is helpful to those who want to investigate a specific event, the proactive disclosure of data—for example, with respect to public expenditure, public procurement processes, and public contracts—may raise “red flags” that can spur more in-depth investigations.

There are three deficiencies in particular that should be remedied, so that Brazil’s freedom of information laws can be effective in ensuring the sorts of proactive information disclosure that can foster transparency and detect or deter corruption:

Continue reading

The End of Institutional Multiplicity: A Drawback in the New Administrative Improbity Law

Brazil’s Administrative Improbity Law is one of the cornerstones of the country’s anticorruption framework. The law imposes administrative and civil liability on public officials and political agents for illicit enrichment, damage to the treasury, and acts against the principles of public administration. Before its enactment in 1992, these forms of misconduct were only punishable under criminal law, which imposes a much more demanding evidentiary standard. The enactment of the Administrative Improbity Law thus played a valuable role in enabling the government to hold corrupt actors liable in those situations where the evidence of corruption, though strong, was not enough to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

This past October, the Brazilian government enacted significant amendments to the Administrative Improbity Law. Some of these changes were welcome, particularly those that clarified vague provisions and attempted to speed up the process. (Brazilian courts have taken on average six years to adjudicate administrative improbity claims.) But another change is much less welcome: The amendments to the law reduced the number of institutions that can file a suit for violations of the law. Under the original version of the law, a suit could be initiated either by the Public Prosecution Office (an autonomous body) or by the government entity that was harmed by the corrupt act (the federal Attorney General’s Office in the case of acts that harm the national government, and the state or municipal authorities in the case of acts that harmed subnational government entities). This arrangement is a form of what Brazilian scholars typically refer to as institutional multiplicity—an arrangement where multiple institutions have overlapping authority to enforce legal provisions. Institutional multiplicity is a key feature of Brazil’s anticorruption framework. The new version of the Administrative Improbity Law scraps this multiplicity, at least in this context, by giving the Public Prosecution Office the exclusive right to file administrative improbity suits.

This is a mistake.

Continue reading

Guest Post: What Should Brazil’s Next President Do To Get the Anticorruption Agenda Back on Track?

Today’s guest post is from Marcelo Malheiros Cerqueira, a Brazilian federal prosecutor and a member of the GAECO/MPF (Special Action Group for Combating Organized Crime) in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil.

Since 2019, Brazil´s anticorruption efforts have been disrupted and derailed. Institutions in charge of fighting corruption are being constantly weakened or attacked. Tools that have been central to Brazilian prosecutors’ anticorruption investigations, such as plea bargains and leniency agreements, are being dismantled by new legislation, and the Congress has not moved forward on proposals that would enhance the fight against corruption (see here and here). The judiciary, mainly by its Supreme Court, has have nullified convictions, or sometimes entire investigations, in major corruption cases, and in so doing has weakened the anticorruption system (see some examples herehere and also here). And despite the fact that anticorruption was a central theme of the 2018 presidential campaign, the government has been questioned for lending its support to pushback against the anticorruption agenda and politicizing formerly non-partisan bodies like the Federal Police.

While the backlash against Brazil’s anticorruption efforts is a three-branch problem, Brazilian voters have an opportunity to address at least one aspect of the problem next year, when they go to the polls to select Brazil’s next president.

This brings us to the question: What should the next Brazilian president do, whoever he or she may be? To put this question another way, when voters and civil society organizations are assessing the future presidential candidates’ anticorruption platforms, what sorts of policies and proposals should they look for? While the issue is obviously quite complicated, here are four initial proposals, from the simplest to the most difficult to implement:

  • First, the president needs to demonstrate a commitment to integrity as a core values of the administration—and must do so not simply through rhetoric, but by taking practical action such as refusing to appoint individuals implicated in corruption cases to senior government positions and pushing for the adoption of integrity measures at lower levels of the bureaucratic hierarchy. Doing so will not only help ensure integrity in the Federal government, but will also set a positive example for state governors and mayors, and help foster a culture of integrity more broadly in the society.
  • Second, the president should respect and empower the institutions of the anticorruption system, avoiding any risk of their political capture. This requires that the appointment of directors for bodies such as the Financial Activity Control Council (COAF), the Federal Police, and the Comptroller General of the Union (CGU) be guided by non-partisan technical criteria, instead of making appointments on the basis of political alignment or personal relationships. Likewise, the next president should restore the longstanding tradition of choosing the Prosecutor General of the Republic (PGR) from the list of three candidates previously voted by the members of the Federal Prosecution Office. This model is ideal for guaranteeing the autonomy of the PGR, which, in turn, is essential for the criminal investigation and prosecution of higher-ranking political agents (including the president) for possible acts of corruption.
  • Third, the president must commit to working to enact legislative and constitutional reforms that decrease impunity for acts of corruption, such as the proposed constitutional amendments to allow incarceration of defendants after the first affirmation of a conviction in an appeal´s court (rather than allowing convicted defendants to remain at liberty until all possible appeals are exhausted) and end to the “privileged forum” rule that says high-level public officials can only be tried in higher courts. On the other hand, the president must also oppose—and if necessary veto—any attempt by the Congress to inhibit the action of anticorruption bodies or to weaken existing anticorruption tools (as unfortunately occurred recently with respect to amendments to Brazil’s Administrative Misconduct Act).
  • Fourth, the most difficult anticorruption challenge facing Brazil’s next president will be reforming the Brazilian electoral system, which is a root cause of the grand corruption that recent investigations have exposed. Any attempt to change the electoral system will face strong opposition by influential politicians, whose power relies in rules that ensure expensive campaigns and unequal distribution of the public electoral fund. Thus, the president must spearhead the attempt to reform the political system—but should probably only do so when he or she has sufficient high public approval, probably after the implementation of the other three proposals mentioned above.

This short list obviously does not encompass all the possible measures that can be taken by the next president against corruption. It would be helpful to know what GAB readers think about these suggestions, as well as what other proposals they might suggest.

One last word. Political leaders can do a lot to help the anticorruption agenda. But that does not mean that societies depend exclusively on them. Good education, transparency, popular control, high standards of morality and many other factors are crucial to the success of the fight against corruption. Therefore, although the central question posed here brings the opportunity to debate the role of the president, civil society also needs to take care of its role.

Corruption’s War on the Law

“Corruption’s War on the Law” is the headline on an article Project Syndicate just published. There former French magistrate and corruption fighter Eva Joly recounts the fate of those who have dared to confront powerful networks of corrupt officials and those who corrupt them.  Maltese investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia was murdered by accomplices of those she was investigating. So was Rwandan anti-corruption lawyer Gustave Makonene. So too was Brazilian anticorruption activist Marcelo Miguel D’Elia.

After a second attempt on his life, Nuhu Ribadu, first chair of Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the country’s premier anticorruption agency, famously remarked:

“When you fight corruption, it fights back.”

In her article, Mme. Joly, who received numerous threats for investigating and ultimately convicting senior French officials for corruption, explains that violence is just one way corruption “fights back.”  The most recent head of Nigeria’s EFCC was arrested and detained on trumped up charges of corruption. Ibrahim Magu has been suspended from office pending further proceedings, proceedings unlikely to be held this century.

At the same, Nigerian anticorruption activist Lanre Suraju is, as this blog reported last week, being charged with “cyberstalking” for circulating documents from a court case that implicate associates of the current Attorney General in a the massive OPL-245 corruption scandal. This form of intimidation, which Nigerians have dubbed “lawfare,” has now been exported to Europe. Italian prosecutors are being subjected to both criminal charges and administrative action for having the nerve to prosecute one of Italy’s largest companies for foreign bribery (here).

President Biden has declared the global fight against corruption to be a national priority, and he will shortly host a democracy summit where Brazil, Italy, Malta, Nigeria, and Rwanda will be represented at the highest level. Might he remind them which side of the fight they should be on?

Brazil Should Rethink the Corporate Death Penalty for Corrupt Acts

Brazil’s Clean Company Act (CCA), enacted during a time of mass protests against corruption and impunity, was a major step forward in the fight against corporate crime. While the CCA is best known for its imposition of strict civil and administrative liability on legal entities that commit corrupt acts against public administration, the CCA is also notable for its authorization, in extreme cases, of a “corporate death penalty.” More specifically, the CCA requires the dissolution of a corporation or other legal entity when (1) the legal entity is in fact a “shell company” used to conceal illegal acts (such as money laundering, tax evasion, or procurement fraud), or (2) the legal entity was used on a regular basis to facilitate or promote the performance of wrongful acts. Applying the corporate death penalty to shell companies created for the purpose of facilitating or concealing criminal acts is straightforward and not terribly controversial, especially since these shell companies do not engage in any genuine productive activity. The controversy arises with respect to the second category, which can include productive companies.

Applying the extreme sanction of corporate dissolution might seem like appropriately strong medicine for companies, even productive companies, that have been involved in serious and ongoing illegality. In practice, however, this sanction is not working as intended. A much more effective and realistic sanction, at least in the Brazilian context, would be to compel a persistently corrupt (but productive) company’s shareholders to sell their controlling stake in the company—thus preserving the company as a going concern, but placing it under new ownership and management.

Continue reading

Guest Post: Shifting Anticorruption Messaging from “Crime and Punishment” to “Guardrails for Good Government”

Today’s guest post is from Joe Grady, a co-founder of the Topos Partnership, a firm that specializes in public opinion research:

Public backing is critical to the success of anticorruption reform efforts. Yet communications intended to mobilize the public against corruption often backfire, making audiences less engaged and less confident the problem can be solved. To better understand this problem, the Open Society Foundations recently sponsored an international research effort led by the Topos Partnership to better understand how residents of three countries—the United States, North Macedonia, and Brazil—think about corruption in the public sphere, and how best to engage them in efforts to combat the problem. In each country, ethnographers spoke at length with roughly 150 people, followed by internet surveys testing different kinds of messages.

Not surprisingly, findings across the countries are distinct in various interesting ways. Macedonians, for example, often have a sense that their country lags behind other European countries, and they may also look back nostalgically at the Yugoslav era when things seemed to run more predictably. Brazilians see themselves as being culturally averse to rigid rules and procedures, including those that keep government “honest.” The U.S. public has a strong sense that government is supposed to be by and for the people. But despite these important differences, there are also important similarities across the three countries. Continue reading

Guest Post: Brazil’s Bill Restricting Cash Transactions Would Help Fight Corruption

Today’s guest post is from Marcelo Costenaro Cavali, a Brazilian Federal Judge in the District Court of Sao Paolo and a Professor of Criminal Law at the FGV Sao Paolo law faculty.

Criminals like to use cash because it is widely accepted, anonymous, and virtually impossible to track. Paying bribes in cash, for example, may be less risky than using more easily traceable electronic transfers. For this reason, many countries have enacted, or are considering, legislation restricting the use or possession of cash in large quantities. For example, in Brazil, the Senate is currently considering a bill that would prohibit the use of cash for all real estate transactions and for all other transactions over 10,000 Brazilian reais (approximately 1,900 US$); the bill would further prohibit carrying over 100,000 reais (approximately 19,000 US$) and possessing over 300,000 reais (approximately 57,000 US$) in cash, except in specific situations. (The bill would leave the implementation and enforcement to the Brazilian Financial Intelligence Unit (COAF), which would also have the power to adjust the threshold amounts.) Such limits on holding and using cash can be an effective means for disrupting money laundering, corruption, and tax evasion, and this bill, if passed, could therefore be an important step forward in Brazil’s fight against corruption and other economic crimes. Continue reading