Brazilian Chamber approves legal framework for combating organized crime.

Proposal goes to the Senate.

The Chamber of Deputies approved a bill that increases penalties for participation in criminal organizations or militias and provides for the prior seizure of the suspect’s assets under certain circumstances. The text will be sent to the Senate.

The Plenary approved this Tuesday (18) a substitute from the rapporteur,

deputy Guilherme Derrite (PP-SP)

, for Bill 5582/25, from the Executive Branch.

There were 370 votes in favor of the rapporteur’s text, 110 votes against, and 3 abstentions .

Government supporters disagreed with most of the substitute bill and defended the original project. However, according to the rapporteur, the federal government’s original project was “weak” and therefore needed to be altered. “The government never wanted to debate the text technically and preferred to attack us. It was my decision not to participate in today’s meeting because the government had more than 15 days to debate the text,” stated Derrite.

“It was Lula who sent the bill with the fundamental concept of characterizing the criminal type of gang,” said the government leader, Deputy José Guimarães (PT-CE), criticizing the removal of the passage that, according to him, was the backbone of the text.

Social Domination:

The substitute bill criminalizes several common behaviors of criminal organizations or private militias and assigns them a prison sentence of 20 to 40 years in a crime categorized as structured social domination. Facilitating this domination will be punished with imprisonment from 12 to 20 years.

The rapporteur’s text also provides for the prior seizure of the suspect’s assets in certain circumstances, with the possibility of forfeiture of these assets before the final judgment of the criminal case.

Described by the rapporteur as a legal framework for combating organized crime, the bill imposes several restrictions on those convicted of either of these two crimes (control or aiding and abetting), such as a prohibition on being granted amnesty, pardon or clemency, bail or parole.

Dependents of the insured person will not be entitled to imprisonment allowance if the insured person is in pretrial detention or serving a prison sentence, in a closed or semi-open regime, due to having committed any crime foreseen in the bill.

Individuals convicted of these crimes or held in custody pending trial must be detained in a maximum-security federal prison if there is concrete evidence that they exercise leadership, command, or are part of the command core of a criminal organization, paramilitary group, or private militia.

Those who only engage in preparatory acts to help carry out the listed conduct may have their sentence reduced by one-third to one-half.

The text defines a criminal faction as any criminal organization, or even three or more people, that employ violence, serious threats, or coercion to control territories, intimidate populations, or threaten authorities.

The framework also applies when they attack essential services, infrastructure or equipment, and also if they occasionally commit “any acts” aimed at carrying out the crimes defined in the bill.

Investigation:

Specific rules for investigation, inquiry, and evidence gathering foreseen for organized crime offenses may also be applied, where applicable, in relation to the crimes listed in the bill.

One of the controversies was the alteration in the attribution of the Federal Police, which was removed from the text. The Federal Police also remains responsible, along with the Ministry of Justice and Public Security, for international cooperation in the police, judicial, or intelligence spheres when the crimes involve foreign organizations.

International agreements, treaties, conventions and principles of reciprocity will be observed for purposes of investigation, extradition and asset recovery, for example.

According to the text, the following conduct by a member of a criminal organization, paramilitary group, or private militia will be considered
a structured social domain crime, regardless of its reasons or motivations:

• To use violence or serious threats to intimidate or coerce the population or public officials in order to control territory;
• To impede, obstruct, or hinder the actions of public security forces, police pursuits, or law enforcement operations by using barricades, roadblocks, fires, or destruction of roads;
• To impose, through violence or serious threat, any type of social control over the exercise of economic, commercial, public or community service activity;
• Using explosives, firearms, or equipment to rob financial institutions, cash transport depots, or armored trucks, or even to hinder police operations;
• To promote attacks, involving violence or serious threats, against prison institutions;
• to damage, vandalize, set fire to, destroy, loot, explode or render unusable, totally or partially, means of transport;
• to seize or sabotage aircraft, endangering lives or compromising civil aviation safety;
• to sabotage or seize, in whole or in part, ports, airports, train stations and railway or road lines, hospitals, health centers, schools, sports stadiums and other essential public service facilities, such as electricity or refineries;
• To interrupt or access confidential information in order to gain any kind of advantage in public database systems or government or public interest communication services;
• to employ or threaten to use firearms, explosives, toxic gases, poisons, biological, chemical or nuclear agents, endangering public peace and safety; and
• To restrict, limit, or hinder the free movement of people, goods, and services, whether public or private, without legitimate justification recognized by law.

Except in the last two cases, if the perpetrator engages in these actions even without being part of a criminal organization, paramilitary group, or private militia, the prison sentence will be 12 to 30 years, without prejudice to penalties corresponding to threats, violence, or other crimes provided for in the legislation.

All other restrictions apply, such as those relating to heinous crimes and the prohibition of prison assistance.

Regarding aggravating

circumstances, which are situations that increase the penalty, Derrite’s text provides for an increase of half to two-thirds of the prison sentence of 20 to 40 years if:

• The agent may exercise command or leadership, even if they did not personally commit the acts;
• The agent, in any way, obtains resources or information to finance these actions;
• if the conduct involves violence or serious threats against the police or Armed Forces, a member of the Judiciary or the Public Prosecutor’s Office, a child, adolescent, elderly person, person with a disability, or any person in a vulnerable situation, or even if there is involvement, coercion, or enticement of these individuals to commit or assist in committing the acts;
• if there is a connection with other criminal organizations;
• if a public official is involved in the commission of a criminal offense;
• There is infiltration into the public sector or direct or indirect involvement in the administration of public services or in government contracts;
• if a restricted or prohibited firearm, explosive, or similar device that poses a common danger is used;
• the agent recruiting or allowing a child or adolescent to participate in these acts;
• if circumstances indicate the existence of relations with other countries or if the proceeds of the criminal offense are sent abroad;
• if drones or similar devices are used, electronic surveillance systems, advanced encryption, or technological resources for territorial monitoring, location of police operations; or
• The crime is committed to obtain economic advantage through the illegal extraction of mineral resources (illegal mining) or through the unauthorized economic exploitation of forests and other forms of vegetation, public or unclaimed lands, or permanent preservation areas and conservation units.

The trial for homicides committed by these groups, or attempted homicides, will be conducted by a panel of judges (collegiate criminal courts) when they are connected to the aforementioned crimes.

The commission of these crimes will be sufficient grounds for ordering pretrial detention.

Regarding
the crime of aiding and abetting structured social dominance, it will be characterized solely by the act of joining or founding a criminal, paramilitary, or militia organization, or even supporting them in any way.

Six other types of conduct also constitute this crime if they are related to structured social control:

• To provide shelter or assistance to those who have committed or are about to commit such acts;
• Distributing a message to encourage another person to commit these acts;
• to buy, produce or store explosive material or firearms for the purpose of carrying out these acts;
• to use any place or property of any kind to engage in these actions;
• To provide information in support of a criminal organization, paramilitary group, or militia that engages in such conduct;
• Falsely claiming to belong to a criminal, paramilitary, or militia organization in order to obtain any type of advantage or to intimidate third parties.

Crimes

of structured social domination, their aggravating circumstances, and the act of facilitating such domination are considered heinous crimes. This also applies to those who engage in conduct related to structured domination without being part of a criminal organization, paramilitary group, or private militia.

Currently, the Law on Heinous Crimes lists more than 30 categories of crimes of various types considered heinous, for which amnesty, pardon, clemency, or bail cannot be granted, and who also have a longer sentence progression period.

PHOTO

Sentence progression:
For all crimes considered heinous under Law 8.072/90, the approved text increases the time served in a closed regime before the convict can access the semi-open regime, fulfilling the legal conditions.

Thus, those convicted of this type of crime who are first-time offenders will have to serve 70% of their sentence in a closed regime, instead of the current 40%.

In the case of repeat offenders, the minimum of 60% in a closed regime increases to 80%. When the person is a repeat offender and the heinous crime results in the victim’s death, the percentage increases from 70% to 85%.

If the defendant convicted of a heinous crime resulting in death is a first-time offender, the total time served in a closed regime increases from 50% to 75% of the sentence. The same change will apply to those convicted of the crime of forming a private militia.

Those convicted of leading a criminal organization structured to commit heinous crimes will also have to serve 75% of their sentence instead of 50%. In this case, the rapporteur’s text prohibits access to parole.

Derrite included femicide as a new case in this sentence, which covers 75% of the sentence served in a closed regime, also prohibiting access to parole.

Regarding the
timeframe for concluding the police investigation of crimes listed in the new law, it will be 30 days if the suspect is in custody or 90 days if they are at liberty, both extendable for an equal period.

Receiving
Stolen Goods: The only amendment approved in plenary session includes a text proposed by Representative Marangoni (União-SP) which stipulates, as a consequence of conviction, the suspension, for 180 days, of the CNPJ (Brazilian taxpayer identification number) of a company established to receive stolen goods originating from crime.

In the event of a repeat offense, the company’s administrator will be prohibited from engaging in commerce for five years.

“This emphasis is intended to dismantle the criminal structure of cargo theft, and not just impose personal penalties on those who receive stolen goods,” argued Marangoni, citing that these businesses finance organized crime.

Voter registration:
The Plenary also approved an amendment by Representative Marcel van Hattem (Novo-RS) to prohibit voter registration for those in pretrial detention and to cancel their voter registration if they already possess one.

“It makes no sense for a citizen to be separated from society, but be able to decide the course of politics in their municipality, state, and even Brazil,” said Van Hattem. He classified the right to vote for these prisoners as a privilege. “Prisoners can’t vote. It’s a contradiction, it’s ridiculous.”

According to the PT leader, Congressman Lindbergh Farias (RJ), this amendment gives the impression that the Novo party has abandoned former president Jair Bolsonaro and congresswoman Carla Zambelli (PL-SP), both of whom are in pre-trial detention. “I just want to draw the House’s attention to this. If we are talking about political rights, we have a federal congresswoman serving her term while imprisoned in Italy. At the very least, she should be removed from office immediately,” he said.

Rejected amendments:
Check out the amendments rejected by the Plenary:

– The PT-PCdoB-PV Federation highlighted the intention to remove a section of the text that provided for penalties for those who committed preparatory acts related to crimes of structured social control;

– Congressman Lindbergh Farias’ amendment aimed to maintain the allocation of resources from assets seized from organized crime to the National Public Security Fund (FNSP);

– The highlight from the PT-PCdoB-PV Federation aimed to remove from the text the possibility of civil action for forfeiture of assets;

– The highlight from the PT-PCdoB-PV Federation was to include in the text a large section of the original bill with provisions regarding increased penalties, forfeiture of assets, and access to data on those under investigation held in public or private databases.

Learn more about the legislative process.

 

Reporting – Eduardo Piovesan and Tiago Miranda
Editing – Pierre Triboli