Juscelino Filho indicated payments to the person being investigated, says PF – 11/21/2023 – Power

An engineer, two employees of the city hall of Vitorino de Freire (MA), headed by his sister, and at least two companies appear as recipients of payments requested by Minister Juscelino Filho (Communications) from businessman Eduardo José Barros Costa, known as Eduardo DP.

The requests and names of the people and companies indicated by Juscelino Filho, at the time federal deputy for União Brasil, were found in messages on Eduardo DP’s cell phone from 2017 to 2020.

The businessman is suspected of embezzlement in million-dollar contracts from the federal state-owned company Codevasf and with whom, according to the Federal Police, Lula’s minister has a “criminal relationship”. He is identified as the true owner of the construction company Construservice and others in the construction sector.

The minister’s defense told the Sheet that the statements about him having had personal benefit as a deputy are conclusions and claims that the messages do not have a reliable origin, “trying to create a fanciful narrative that is not true”.

Just like Eduardo DP, the minister and his sister, the mayor of Vitorino Freire (MA), Luanna Rezende, are being investigated in the Odoacro operation, which investigates a scheme of deviations in contracts funded by parliamentary amendments intended through Codevasf, a state-owned company under the domination of the center.

The PF even requested a search and seizure of Juscelino Filho’s addresses, but Minister Luís Roberto Barroso (STF) denied it.

One of those who appears in the minister’s messages to the businessman is engineer Alysson Pereira da Silva. On February 18, 2018, according to a PF report, then deputy Juscelino Filho sent data from the engineer’s bank account and indicated the amount of “R$9,400.00”.

The following day, Eduardo DP sent proof of the transfer to the account and in the amount mentioned by Juscelino. Confirmation that the payment is related to Juscelino Filho, says the PF, is an audio also found on Eduardo DP’s cell phone.

In a message sent to his brother, who takes care of the companies’ finances, Eduardo DP states about the transfer: “This is from Juscelino there from Vitorino, the Deputy, do this, he did the earthworks on that paving, it’s to deduct , it saw?”.

The engineer told Sheet who was an intern at an office at the time, and received payment from Eduardo DP for services rendered. He stated that he had no contact and did not know Juscelino or the businessman.

“I did the field survey of road areas, buildings, I was an intern at the office. I did this work, I presented it to the office, I was paid for it. That was it,” he said, without giving the name of the place where he worked.

He also stated that he has already spoken to the PF about the case. “I’ve already made the clarification there, I’ve already been dismissed, and we can’t be giving any comments.”

The PF investigation also states that Juscelino indicated the account of Neilizângela Fernandes Ferreira, a servant at Vitorino Freire City Hall, for at least two transfers from Eduardo DP. One of them worth R$6,500.

The other, says the PF, was R$7,500 and “occurred after Juscelino Filho sent a folder alluding to a vaquejada party at Parque Luanna, a stud farm belonging to his family.”

The server did not answer the reporter’s phone calls and, through messages, responded only when asked about the reason for the payment. “We don’t know. Therefore, we have no connection with him.” She did not respond to the report’s questions about the PF investigation.

Another woman nominated by Juscelino Filho to receive amounts is Marina Souza, appointed by the PF as caretaker of Vitorino Freire City Hall. She would have received R$9,000.

It caught the attention of investigators that she lived in the rural area of ​​the city. A Sheet He tried to contact the phones on his behalf, but did not receive a response.

The messages also show Juscelino Filho indicating the accounts of Antônio Silva da Silva, resident of São Luís, capital of Maranhão, to receive R$40,000 from Eduardo DP. He did not answer the reporter’s calls and did not respond to questions sent by message.

In addition to these people, the messages show the minister’s recommendation of two companies for the businessman’s transfers.

One of them is L De Medeiros F Rocha. Regarding her, the PF states that Eduardo DP asked Juseclino “what name of the person to get the notice from and where”. The contractor then sent a bank transfer receipt of R$31,500 to a company, registered in the name of Lucas de Medeiros Freitas Rocha. A Sheet was unable to locate him.

The other company indicated is Arco Construções, according to the PF, on behalf of third parties, but with Juscelino Filho as the true owner. The minister appears in the messages linking the transfers to Arco to the carrying out of earthworks on a project in the city whose mayor is his sister.

Juscelino’s defense speaks of absurd conclusions

In a statement, Juscelino’s lawyers stated that “the conclusions that Juscelino had any personal benefit from his parliamentary activity are absurd, especially constructed from supposed messages without known origin or reliability, trying to create a fanciful narrative that does not proceed, in a tireless search to prevent the minister from exercising his public function”.

“This is yet another attack in the attempt to criminalize parliamentary amendments, a legitimate and democratic instrument of the National Congress, while there is absolutely nothing that discredits Juscelino Filho’s performance in the Ministry of Communications”, the note signed by the lawyers also states. Ticiano Figueiredo and Pedro Ivo Velloso.

The lawyers also say that “the alleged messages were already included in the PF report used in an attempt to support a search and seizure in relation to Juscelino Filho, which were analyzed by the STF, which even rejected the PF’s request for precautionary measures.”

When denying the search and seizure against Juscelino, Minister Luís Roberto Barroso, then rapporteur of the case, stated that there was a risk of “institutional impact of the measure, whose damage could be irreversible”.