Court upholds conviction of group that imported illegal pesticides from Uruguay

The Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region (TRF4) decided to maintain the conviction of three men from Rio Grande do Sul who participated in an illegal scheme to import pesticides originating in Uruguay. The decision was handed down unanimously by the 8th Panel of the Court in a virtual trial session held this week.

In November 2016, as part of “Operation Quileros II”, which investigated the illegal importation of pesticides, the Federal Police (PF), working together with the Military Police (PM), arrested a man who was transporting of pesticides in a truck. He was arrested red-handed in Itaqui (RS), along with an accomplice, now deceased, who acted as a scout at the time.

Following this arrest, investigations discovered the irregular pesticide import scheme that included a mediator and a final buyer, with the suspects being monitored through telephone tapping. Those involved also became defendants in the action.

The Federal Public Ministry (MPF) charged the three men. In the 1st Federal Court of Uruguaiana (RS), they were convicted of importing substances that are toxic to human health and potentially harmful to the environment, without authorization from a competent Brazilian body. They received the same sentence: one year and two months in prison, in addition to paying a 30-day fine, each equivalent to 1/30 of the minimum wage in force at the time of the crime.

The custodial sentences were replaced by two restrictive sentences. Instead of imprisonment, each defendant was sentenced to community service, for the same period as the substituted sentence, and to monetary benefits, set at 10 minimum wages.

The convicts appealed to the TRF4, contesting the materiality and authorship of the facts. Furthermore, two of them requested a reduction in the monetary benefit.

The 8th Panel, unanimously, maintained the convictions, but reduced the value of the established monetary benefit. The materiality, authorship and intent were analyzed by the panel, and there was no divergence on these points, with all judges agreeing with the first degree judgement. Although only two convicts contested the value of the benefit, the reduction criterion was also applied, ex officio, to the third defendant. Thus, the value for each one was set at three minimum wages.

Judge João Pedro Gebran Neto, rapporteur of the case, highlighted that “concerning the arguments brought by the defenses that there would not be sufficient evidence for the conviction, there is no reason for them since the materiality, authorship and intent in the commission of the crime of irregular import and transport of pesticides based on documentary and testimonial evidence. The facts discovered throughout the investigation clearly attest to the actual practice, by the appellants, of the criminal conduct for which they were convicted.”

The ruling received the following summary:

CRIMINAL. CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS. OPERATION QUILEROS II. ART. 56 OF LAW No. 9.605/98. EXPERTISE. UNNECESSITY. PROVEN MATERIALITY, AUTHORSHIP AND INTENT. PECUNIARY INSTALLMENT. COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS. 1. In crimes such as those in art. 56 of the Environmental Law, materiality is proven, as a rule, with documents drawn up and drawn up by the competent tax authority responsible for due diligence at the time of seizure of the goods. 2. It is not necessary to examine the product in order to demonstrate its dangerousness, as the crime is consummated with the mere practice of any of the conducts described in the criminal type, regardless of the actual production of a harmful result.  3. If the materiality, authorship and intent in committing the crime of irregular importation and transportation of pesticides are proven by documentary and testimonial evidence, the conviction under the penalties of art. 56 of Law 9.605/98. 4.  The penalty for monetary benefits must not be arbitrated at an excessive amount, in such a way as to make the defendant insolvent, or insignificant, so that it is not even felt as a sanction, allowing the magistrate to use the set of elements indicative of financial capacity, such as the declared monthly income, the high cost of the criminal enterprise, the previous payment of high bail. 5. The disproportionate excess represents illegality in setting the monetary benefit and authorizes a reasoned review by the appeal court. 6. Appeals by defendants EDGAR and AECIO partially granted. Granting of ex officio habeas corpus to defendant JONAS. (TRF4, ACR 5001044-84.2019.4.04.7103, EIGHTH PANEL, Rapporteur JOÃO PEDRO GEBRAN NETO, added to the file on 18/08/2021)