RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL – A corruption scheme involving a collusion between army officers and entrepreneurs in a food procurement fraud between 2005 and 2006 is now starting to be penalized.
The Military Courts recently convicted 26 defendants, eleven of whom were officers – two colonels, one lieutenant colonel, one lieutenant, one major, and five captains – eight low-ranking military officers and seven foodstuffs entrepreneurs.
The military officers and civilians were convicted by the deputy federal judge of the Military Court Alexandre Quintas to sentences of up to 16 years in the case of a colonel.
In the sentence, the judge reports that the closeness between two captains and an entrepreneur was such that “the latter hired prostitutes and promoted a party in a motel in Manaus for these officers.”
The scheme was uncovered by Operation Saúva, conducted by the Federal Police in 2006. It found evidence of fraud in bidding for the purchase of foodstuffs, payment of kickbacks, price manipulation, and fraud in receiving the products in terms of quality and quantity through recordings and documents.
This scheme – a minor one, if compared to the billions of the Petrolão scandal, was repeated in several military facilities, such as supply units, and even in the Amazon Military Command and the Army Supply Directorate in Brasília.
The sentence does not provide an updated figure for the embezzled amount. In 2005, the officers divided a total of R$620,000 (US$124,000) between them, according to Federal Police data.
The original indictment involved 39 individuals, 29 of whom were military officers, including soldiers who received R$500 “allowances” from officers. The lawsuit dragged on because over the years there were many appeals, case interruptions, and writs of habeas-corpus.
Some of the defendants confessed to the scheme, others argued violation of the right to counsel and broad defense, and attempted to dismiss the crime of embezzlement forbidding law. Since all are first time offenders with good track records, they will be able to appeal the sentence in freedom.
Source: Veja