The money transferred by the SUS to the states and municipalities, although incorporated by them, is still federal. Therefore, they attract the Union’s interest in their requests and destination. Therefore, any deviations must be judged by the Federal Court.
Based on this understanding, the Fifth Committee of the Supreme Court of Justice approved the appeal in the habeas corpus case brought by the defense in the case of embezzlement of funds from the social organization IBGH from SUS to the province of Aparecida de Goiânia (GO).
With this decision, STJ acknowledges the lack of jurisdiction of the First Specialized Court in the Crimes of Criminal Organization and Money Laundering in Goiania (GO) to consider and judge the case.
The Fifth Committee also determined that acts and evidence already produced do not automatically count as invalid. Because it has been authorized by an apparently competent court, it may be validated, or not certified, by the Federal Court, in due course.
Through the decision, STJ solidified the broad trend under which the embezzlement of funds from the SUS falls within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, in light of the duty of inspection and supervision of the Federal Government.
This understanding also applies to cases where funds are transferred in “fund to fund” mode – when federal funds leave state or municipal funds, then they are applied.
Even if the transfer is made when these funds are already incorporated into state or municipal coffers, the Union’s interest in using these funds remains, and thus the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to rule on the potential crimes involved.
The rapporteur, Minister Ribeiro Dantas, added, “Although recognizing the lack of jurisdiction of the state court, I understand that the procedural measures must be evaluated by the competent court, in order to be able to determine whether or not to certify the acts carried out so far.” .
“It should be noted that in this High Court of Justice, the theory of ostensible judgment can be applied to certify precautionary measures in the context of a police investigation when it is apparently authorized to do so by a competent court,” he added.
“Music fanatic. Very humble explorer. Analyst. Travel fanatic. Extreme television teacher. Gamer.”