The independence of jurisdictional spheres is a central issue for understanding how administrative and civil violations may have repercussions in criminal proceedings, especially in cases involving economic crimes, public procurement offenses, environmental crimes, and antitrust violations.
Understanding these interactions is essential for developing a strategic criminal defense, always in compliance with the ethical and technical limits established by the legal framework.
Administrative Sphere: Specialized Agencies and the Beginning of Investigations
Many investigations involving economic crime originate in the administrative sphere and are conducted by specialized agencies. For example:
- CADE – Administrative Council for Economic Defense: investigates violations of economic and antitrust regulations.
- Institute of Water and Land (IAT) and environmental agencies: issue citations and conduct preliminary procedures related to environmental crimes.
After the administrative investigation is concluded, it is common for the matter to be forwarded to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, enabling the filing of criminal charges and the initiation of a criminal action.
Effects of Administrative Proceedings on Criminal Proceedings
Although administrative evidence is frequently used in criminal cases, this practice requires caution. Administrative proceedings:
- do not require mandatory legal counsel;
- allow evidence to be produced without the presence of a defense attorney;
- provide more limited procedural safeguards compared to criminal proceedings.
These differences may affect the validity and evidentiary weight of the materials gathered, particularly in light of the constitutional rights to broad defense and adversarial proceedings.
Interaction with the Civil Sphere
Similarly, civil investigations and lawsuits — often aimed at compensating damages or assessing administrative liability — may result in referrals to criminal authorities. Evidence-sharing between spheres is also common, but must strictly comply with constitutional and statutory limits.
Independence of the Spheres and Concurrent Proceedings
When administrative, civil, and criminal proceedings run simultaneously, the dynamics become even more complex.
According to settled case law of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), decisions in the criminal sphere only have automatic effects on civil and administrative proceedings when acquittal is based on:
- proof of non-authorship, or
- proof that the alleged conduct did not occur.
In all other cases, each proceeding follows its own logic and purpose, and may even reach different conclusions based on the same facts. This scenario stems directly from the principle of independence of the spheres, broadly recognized in the case law.
Risk of Multiple Sanctions
The independence of jurisdictional spheres may lead to multiple sanctions arising from the same conduct, such as:
- administrative fines;
- civil sanctions (e.g., damages or penalties);
- suspension of professional, commercial, or business activities;
- restrictions on rights;
- criminal penalties, including imprisonment.
Although legally permissible, this accumulation of sanctions requires carefully structured legal strategy.
Conclusion: The Need for a Multidisciplinary Legal Approach
Faced with complex investigations and the potential sharing of evidence across different spheres, the defense strategy must take into account:
- cross-sphere impacts;
- the validity and method of evidence collection;
- the need for coordinated legal action.
A multidisciplinary approach is essential to ensure an effective and technically sound defense, always in accordance with constitutional principles and the ethical standards of the legal profession.
