STJ reaffirms the Bankruptcy Court's authority to manage seized assets in criminal cases, protecting creditors' rights in bankruptcy situations
In the ruling on Conflict of Jurisdiction 200.512/RJ, under the rapporteurship of Justice Nancy Andrighi of the Second Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), it was decided that assets seized or frozen during police inquiries or criminal proceedings must be transferred to the Bankruptcy Court upon the declaration of bankruptcy of a legal entity.
The established thesis affirms that “in the event of a jurisdictional conflict between Criminal and Bankruptcy Courts over the administration of assets within the bankrupt estate, the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court should prevail, as it is the appropriate forum for managing the bankrupt estate's assets.”
In this case, following the declaration of bankruptcy and the piercing of the corporate veil of a Rio de Janeiro-based company, the Bankruptcy Court issued an official request to the Criminal Court for the transfer of assets seized under precautionary measures, in the name of the company and its partners, as part of a criminal investigation into offenses involving money laundering through crypto-assets and criminal organization.
However, the Criminal Court declined the transfer, asserting its authority to manage these assets based on Article 91, II, of the Penal Code, which outlines the effects of a criminal conviction, including forfeiture to the Union of “the proceeds of the crime or any asset or value obtained by the agent through the offense.”
The Conflict of Jurisdiction sought to clarify which court should have authority over the assets within the bankrupt estate, including those frozen under criminal jurisdiction.
In her opinion, the rapporteur Justice underscored that the Bankruptcy Court should be prioritized as the “competent administrator of the bankrupt estate,” highlighting that the extra-penal effect of Article 91, II, of the Penal Code – regarding asset forfeiture to the Union – cannot harm bona fide third parties, such as creditors of the bankrupt estate. She further noted the subsidiary nature of Article 91, II, of the Penal Code in relation to the effective payment of creditors, emphasizing the universality and indivisibility of the Bankruptcy Court's jurisdiction.
It is also significant that the Bankruptcy Court holds jurisdiction to prosecute and judge bankruptcy-related criminal offenses, as stipulated in Article 183 of the Bankruptcy Law. This Conflict of Jurisdiction ruling thus reinforces the universal authority of the Bankruptcy Court, ensuring the protection of creditors' interests in cases of bankruptcy and judicial recovery.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
