A quick NMM triage found that an exposé based on leaked “top secret” documents from sources unspecified, of which only partial facsmiles of 20% of its pages are presented to the reader, should most likely should be shunted to the “probably nonsense — waste no time on, but hold for comment by responsible adults” bin. This week, Sergio Lírio tries his hand at responsible adulthood.
In the [dossier published by Veja magazine] appear the numbers of bank accounts supposedly controlled by [the federal president, three ex-ministers, the head of the federal police, and a São Paulo senator]. As Márcio Aith reported, in Veja, it was Daniel Dantas himself who handed the dossier to the magazine. And that the person who put the mountain of phony paper together was Frank Holder, a former CIA agent and former Latin American director for Kroll.
Few writers need to be reminded that we seek and publish a response from anyone criticized in our pages. But when the criticism is serious, we have a special obligation to describe the scope of the accusation and let the subject respond in detail. No subject should be taken by surprise when the paper appears, or feel that there was no chance to respond. –New York Times, Guidelines on Integrity.
To deliver a pointless message powerfully is the definition of hype. –Roy H. “The Wizard of Ads®” Williams
There is a theory afoot these days — particularly among some Brazilian news organizations — that if someone accused by a news organization demands the right of reply, they should go find another publication willing to hear their side of the story.
(Or get themselves a good lawyer and fight it out in court for years.)
Which is, of course, a pain in the ass for the reader, who now has to buy two publications — or read endless boring progress reports on protracted litigation.
But I try to limit my spending on reading material — it tends to get out control very quickly, what with Amazon.com and “oh, I need something to read on the subway.
So what I tend to do is stop buying the publications that I have caught bullshitting me and otherwise wasting my time.
So it is for the epic saga of the Italian “spy who talked too much.”
Writing in the CartaCapital newsweekly (Brazil), Sergio Lirio follows up on the peculiar story of the “confessions of an Italian spy” that appeared a week or so ago in IstoÉ Dinheiro [“this is money”] magazine.
ID does not gabble insanely all of the time — it seems to model itself after its U.S. content partner, Fortune (which now lives at CNN Money dot com) — but when it does assign its cover to gabbling, it tends to gabble to a mind-numbing degree. Which is why I tend not to buy it.
I suspected Attuch’s breathless “revelation” of being utterly vacuous based on the very rhetorical breathlessness of it. This is not a conclusive test, of course, but I find it tends to works as an effective rough-and-ready triage mechanism under combat conditions.
Lirio, however, charges that Attuch, in addition to presenting only excerpts of a leaked affidavit by the foreign security expert, failed to mention two other affidavits by the former security executive for Telecom Italia that had been leaked to the Italian press.
None of which sustain the thesis of Attuch’s roman à clef. CC interviews Jannone this week.
CC, you will recall, really has it out for banker Daniel Dantas of Opportunity.
And you might, too, if what is charged to his name is true: That he allegedly bugged several of its journalists — as well as government officials in both FHC II and Lula I — in a case reminiscent of the Hewlett-Packard “pretexting” espionage case. Only way, way nastier.
Dantas’ trial on those charges continues here in São Paulo. Last I heard the case was in the local equivalent of pretrial motions.
Without mentioning Attuch, CC also hints that a related matter — the coopting of journalists into yelling nonexistent facts over the gazillion-jigawatt megaphone of the business press in order to benefit Dantas — also awaits further developments.
At any rate, here is another side of the story. I wonder if Attuch has anyone defending this “reporting” among the Lusophone media punditry corps?
I will check for you. I like Rashomon-type stories with several conflicting versions of events. One of these days, I am going to write one myself. About heroic forensic beancounters untangling webs of deceit, something something.
There is quite a narrative build-up, but the executive summary for the student of journalistic ethics is that Attuch is charged with claiming that Jannone corroborated his story. Which Jannone denies.
Existem dois Angelo Jannone. Um é professor universitário em Milão, foi tenente-coronel do corpo de carabinieri, atuou ao lado do juiz Giovanni Falcone contra a máfia siciliana, virou chefe do setor antifraudes da Telecom Italia na América Latina e morou no Brasil em 2004, auge da disputa empresarial entre a operadora italiana e o banqueiro Daniel Dantas pelo controle de empresas de telefonia privatizadas.
There are two Angelo Jannones. One is a university professor from Milan, a former lieutenant-colonel in the carabinieri who worked with Judge Giovanni Falcone against the Sicilian mafia, then became head of the antifraud unit at Telecom Italia in Latin America, where he lived in 2004, at the height of the business dispute between the Italian telecom and Daniel Dantas over the control of privatized telephone companies.
O outro habita uma ficção travestida de jornalismo que, desde meados do ano passado, volta e meia, é recontada na imprensa brasileira, sempre acrescida de detalhes rocambolescos. Nesse universo fantástico da “reportagem investigativa” nativa, Jannone é um espião enviado ao Brasil para urdir uma trama complexa contra Dantas.
The other is a character in a fiction dressed up as journalism that has been rehashed from time to time since last year, always with the addition of this, that or the other [symptom of Munchausen syndrome]. In this fantasyland of Brazilian “investigative reporting,” Jannone is a spy sent to Brazil to run a complicated plot against Dantas.
Sua principal arma é o poder do dinheiro, com o qual e em nome da Telecom Italia, corrompeu agentes da Polícia Federal e da Agência Brasileira de Investigação (Abin), juízes, políticos e jornalistas. Fariam parte do grupo o ex-diretor da Abin Mauro Marcelo, um ex-policial de nome Álvaro e um detetive particular chamado Eloy Lacerda.
The principal weapon in this spy novel is the power of money, with which, in the name of TI, he allegedly corrupted agents of the Federal Police and the [Brazilian CIA], as well as judges, politicians and journalists. These were all supposedly part of a group run by ex-ABIN director Mauro Marcelo, a retired cop named Álvar and a private eye named Eloy Lacerda.
Outro integrante seria Marcelo Elias, que foi advogado da Telecom Italia e representa atualmente o empresário Luís Roberto Demarco. Ex-sócio do Opportunity, Demarco travou uma longa batalha judicial contra Dantas na Corte das Ilhas Cayman. No ano passado, obteve vitória definitiva, em última instância, na Justiça do Reino Unido, à qual a Corte do paraíso fiscal caribenho está submetida.
Another party is allegedly Marcelo Elias, a former Telecom Italia attorney now representing Luis Roberto Demarco. A former Opportunity partner, Demarco fought a long legal battle with Dantas in the Cayman Islands. Last year, he obtained a definitive victory in a court of final appeal in the United Kingdom, to which the court in the Caribbean financial paradise is subject.
Segundo os magistrados britânicos que analisaram o caso, Dantas e sua irmã, Verônica, falsificaram documentos e mentiram ao tribunal, entre outros crimes. As provas da propina estariam até documentadas. O próprio “espião” teria admitido a existência em um depoimento de 14 de setembro de 2006 à Procuradoria de Milão.
According to British magistrates who examined the case, Dantas and his sister Verônica forged documents and lied to the court, among other crimes. The evidence of bribes were even allegedly documented. The “spy” himself allegedly admitted the existence of bribe payments in a September 14, 2006 statement to the Milan prosecutor.
Apesar de divulgada uma dezena de vezes nos últimos 12 meses, sem evidências mais substanciais, a versão mereceu a capa da revista IstoÉ Dinheiro datada de 19 de setembro. O título da matéria, de autoria do jornalista Leonardo Attuch, foi sugestivo: “Confissões de um espião”. No caso, Jannone. O ex-militar italiano realmente depôs aos procuradores em 14 de setembro do ano passado – e esse depoimento vazou a jornalistas. Jannone foi ouvido outras duas vezes pelo Ministério Público italiano.
Despite having been published dozens of times in the last 12 months, without substantial evidence to back it, this claim was deemed worthy of the cover of IstoÉ Dinheiro on September 19. The headline of the article by Leonardo Attuch was suggestive: “Confessions of a Spy.” Meaning Jannone. The former Italian federal policeman really did give a statement to prosecutors on Sept. 14, 2006 — and this statement leaked to reporters. Jannone gave two other statements to Italian prosecutors.
Mas, ao contrário do que se afirma de forma peremptória em textos publicados no Brasil, não há na primeira (estranhamente a única citada) ou nas declarações subseqüentes nenhuma confissão de suborno ou algo do gênero. Ou qualquer menção à existência de um esquema para prejudicar o banqueiro “perseguido”.
But unlike what has been baldly stated in articles published in Brazil, there is no confession of bribery, or anything of the kind, in the first statement (oddly, the only one cited) or the subsequent two. Or any mention of the existence of a scheme to damage the “persecuted” banker.
Em entrevista a CartaCapital, o ex-policial é ainda mais claro. “Esta sempre foi uma versão do Dantas, desmentida categoricamente pela realidade. A origem da investigação da Kroll pela Polícia Federal é anterior, em dois anos, à minha chegada ao País”, afirma Jannone. O que transformou o ex-policial italiano em um personagem tão instigante para uma parte específica, bem específica, da imprensa brasileira são fatos até agora sem conexão direta, mas que estimulam a imaginação.
In an interview with this newsweekly, the former policeman is even more emphatic. “This was always a theory that Dantas has, one categorically belied by reality. The Brazilian federal police investigation of Kroll precedes my arrival in Brazil by two years,” Jannone says. What transformed the former Italian cop into such an intriguing figure for a very specific part of the Brazilian press are facts that until have not been shown to have any relevance, but which stimulate the imagination.
Em 2006, veio à tona o esquema de espionagem montado por detetives particulares e executivos da Telecom Italia. Foram grampeadas mais de 2 mil personalidades, entre empresários, artistas, jogadores de futebol e políticos. O escândalo, além das dívidas bilionárias, precipitou a troca de comando no grupo, um dos maiores do país, presidido à época pelo empresário Marco Tronchetti- Provera.
In 2006, an espionage scheme mounted by private investigators and Telecom Italia executives came to light. More than 2,000 prominent persons were wiretapped, including business executives, performing artists, football players and politicians. The scandal, along with billion-dollar debts, led to a change of command at the group, one of the largest in Italy, which was led at the time by Marco Tronchetti- Provera.
Um alto executivo, Giuliano Tavaroli, responsável mundialmente pelo setor de segurança da empresa, está preso. Outro executivo, Adamo Bove, morreu. Oficialmente, ele se suicidou. Há, nos métodos de espionagem italiana, enorme semelhança com o chamado caso Kroll. Uma breve memória: em 2002, a PF descobriu que, a mando do Opportunity, a Kroll conduziu apurações ilegais a respeito da vida de desafetos e concorrentes do banqueiro.
A ranking executive, Giuliano Tavaroli, responsible for global security at TI, was arrested. Another, Adamo Bove, died. Officially, it was a suicide. The methods used in the Italian case display enormous similarities with the Kroll case. A brief reminder: in 2002, the Brazilian federal police discovered that, at Opportunity’s behest, Kroll was conducting illegal investigations into the lives of competitors and critics of the banker, Dantas.
Denunciados pelo Ministério Público Federal, Dantas e funcionários da Kroll viraram réus em processo por formação de quadrilha e escuta ilegal, entre outros crimes. A ação corre na 5ª Vara da Justiça Federal de São Paulo. Presume-se que dessas coincidências tenha brotado a tese particularmente conveniente a Dantas. No fundo, segundo essa teoria, o caso Kroll não passaria de uma armação da Telecom Italia, à época adversária do Opportunity (em 2006, os dois grupos se aproximaram e assinaram um acordo, desfeito no primeiro semestre deste ano).
Indicted by the federal prosecutor, Dantas and Kroll employees became defendants in a case of criminal conspiracy and illegal wiretapping, among other crimes. The case continues in a São Paulo federal court. The theory, which is particularly convenient to Dantas, appears to have originated from these coincidences. Bascially, according to this theory, the Kroll case is nothing more than a set-up staged by TI, which was an adversary of Opportunity’s at the time (in 2006, the two groups reconciled and signed a deal that was nullified in the first quarter of 2007).
A operadora teria movimentado uma máquina de corrupção milionária e eficiente para culpar DD de crimes que ele não cometeu. Para reforçar a história, há, além do “depoimento revelador” de Jannone, as declarações de Mario Bernardini, ex-consultor da operadora de telefonia na área de segurança. Bernardini é um “arrependido”. Em troca de uma possível pena mais branda, ingressou no programa de delação premiada da Promotoria de Milão.
TI allegedly mounted an efficient million-dollar corruption scheme to blame Dantas for crimes he did not commit. To support this story, there are, apart from the “revelations” of the Jannone deposition, the statements of Mario Bernardini, a former security consultant to TI. Bernardini is a “repentant” man. In exchange for the possibility of a lighter sentence, he entered the witness protection program of the Milan prosecutor.
São dele as principais afirmações de que havia um grande esquema de corrupção no Brasil. E de que um dos articuladores seria Jannone. Bernardini mencionou um contrato do advogado Elias com a Telecom Italia como prova do pagamento de propina a policiais e políticos. Elias, de fato, manteve um contrato com a companhia, legalmente registrado e declarado no Imposto de Renda. “Fui contratado, com aval do board da Telecom Italia, para atuar em ações no Brasil e no exterior.
From Bernadini have come the main accusations that there was a huge corruption scheme in Brazil. And that one of its masterminds was Jannone. Bernardini mentioned a contract the attorney Elias had with TI as proof that bribes were paid to policemen and politicians. Elias, in fact, did have a contract with TI, legally registered and declared on his income tax. “I was hired, with the approval of the board, to operate in Brazil and abroad.”
Todos os pagamentos estão registrados e cobriram os meus honorários”, afirma Elias. A “pegadinha” jornalística é jogar com os dois depoimentos. Primeiro, tenta-se encontrar pontos em comum. Por exemplo, Bernardini falou em corrupção e Jannone mencionou os contatos de Demarco, para quem Elias advoga, com jornalistas e autoridades. Conclusão: havia pagamento de propina e o empresário era o intermediário.
All thos payments are accounted for, and covered my fees,” Elias says. The journalistic “gotcha” moment comes from playing with the two statements. For example, Bernardini spoke of corruption and Jannone mentioned the contacts of Demarco, whom Elias represented, with journalists and officials. Conclusion: Bribes were paid and the businessman was the intermediary.
Quando Jannone nega que tenha feito referências a um esquema de corrupção, explora-se a “contradição” com as afirmações de Bernardini. Foi o que fez Attuch na edição da IstoÉ Dinheiro de 26 de setembro, subseqüente à capa “Confissões de um espião”. Ao título “Choque de versões”, segue-se a explicação: “Personagem de capa da última Dinheiro, o agente italiano Angelo Jannone nega que tenha cooptado a Polícia Federal e a Abin, mas o depoimento de um outro espião da Telecom Italia o contradiz”.
When Jannon denies that he made reference to a corruption scheme, his “contradictions” are confronted with the statements of Bernardini. That was what Attuch did in the September 26 issue in a follow-up to “Confesions of a Spy.” Under the headline “Conflicting Versions,” he explains: “The star of our last cover story, Italian agent Jannone denies he coopted federal police and ABIN agents, but the testimony of another TI spy contradicts him.”
O estranho é que, na edição anterior, no texto de capa, a revista havia informado que Jannone confirmara o conteúdo à publicação. Bingo! Infelizmente, para a sustentação da tese, uma leitura mais atenta do depoimento de Bernardini demonstra que o delator era, no mínimo, um sujeito mal informado. Há, nas declarações aos promotores, erros grosseiros.
The odd thing is that in the previous issue, in the cover copy, the magazine informed readers that Jannone had corroborated what Attuch had reported. Bingo! Unfortunately, to sustain this theory, a careful reading of Bernadini’s testimony shows that the informant was, at the very least, very badly informed. His statement to prosecutors contains gross errors.
O consultor diz, por exemplo, que o ministro da Fazenda do Brasil no período de funcionamento do esquema chamava-se Ariel Umpierrez (e não Antonio Palocci). Um lapso perdoável para um estrangeiro, dirão alguns. Nem tanto. Ariel Umpierrez existe de verdade. Trata-se de um ex-funcionário do setor de segurança da Telecom Italia na Argentina. Alguém com quem Bernardini manteve contatos profissionais no período em que prestou serviços à operadora.
The consultant says, for example, that the Treasury minister of Brazil at the time the scheme was operating was Ariel Umpierrez (it was actually Antonio Palocci). An understandable lapse on the part of a foreigner, some might say. Not really. Ariel Umpierrez is a real person, an employee in TI’s security division in Argentina. Someone with whom Bernardini had professional contacts while he was working for TI.
Por que ele confundiria um funcionário argentino da empresa com o ministro da Fazenda do Brasil? Não é o único equívoco. O ex-diretor-geral da Polícia Federal Paulo Lacerda é chamado de Eloy Lacerda, o tal detetive. A teoria de que Jannone comandava um grupo para perseguir Dantas esbarra em outras evidências contrárias.
How could he confuse an Argentine coworker with the Treasury minister of Brazil? This is not the only misstatement. The former director of the federal police, Paulo Lacerda, is identified as Eloy Lacerda — the private detective in the case. The theory that Jannone was in charge of a group out to persecute Dantas runs aground on other contradictory evidence.
A PF começou a investigar os funcionários da Kroll após uma cena de pastelão protagonizada, em 2002, por arapongas da empresa americana. Nesse tempo, Jannone ainda integrava a polícia de seu país. Crentes de que estavam no encalço de Andrea Matarazzo, então ministro de FHC, os agentes da Kroll seguiram o presidente do Banco Central, Arminio Fraga. Desconfiado, Fraga acionou os federais. Iniciou-se assim a operação policial, precipitada em 2004 após o jornalista Márcio Aith, então na Folha de S.Paulo, divulgar a história.
The Brazilian feds started investigating Kroll functionaries after a comedy of errors staged in 2002, starring surveillance teams from the American firm. At the time, Jannone was still working for the carabinieri. Believing they were on the trail of Cardoso government minister Andrea Matarazzo, the Kroll agents followed Central Bank president Arminio Fraga. A suspicious Fraga called in the feds. And thus began the police operation, which picked up steam in 2004 when journalist Márcio Aith, then at the Folha de S. Paulo, published the story.
Como adaptar os acontecimentos à tese? Seria preciso imaginar que Jannone, mesmo antes de trabalhar na operadora, corrompeu gente da Kroll para que eles, de forma proposital, cometessem o erro que levou a PF a investigá-los. Haja criatividade. Mais complicado é sustentar a teoria ante o fato de que Dantas montou um dossiê com falsas contas no exterior de autoridades brasileiras.
How reconcile these events with the theory in question? You would have to imagine that Jannone, even before going to work for TI, had corrupted Kroll people into committing the error, on purpose, that put the Brazilian feds onto them. That would take some real creativity, [but it is possible]. More complicated is sustaining the theory in the face of the fact that Dantas ginned up a dossier on phony offshore accounts alleged to belong to Brazilian officials.
Na papelada, aparecem numerários de bancos supostamente movimentados pelo presidente Lula, pelos ex-ministros Palocci, José Dirceu e Luiz Gushiken, pelo delegado Lacerda e pelo senador Romeu Tuma (DEM-SP). Como relatou Márcio Aith, desta vez na Veja, foi o próprio banqueiro quem entregou o dossiê à revista. E quem cuidou de montar a papelada foi Frank Holder, um ex-agente da CIA e ex-diretor da Kroll para a América Latina.
In the [dossier published by Veja magazine] appear the numbers of bank accounts supposedly controlled by [the federal president, three ex-ministers, the head of the federal police, and a São Paulo senator]. As Márcio Aith wrote in Veja, it was Daniel Dantas himself who handed the dossier to the magazine. And the person who put the mountain of phony paper together was Frank Holder, a former CIA agent and former Latin American director for Kroll.
Which cheerfully printed it, then provided the standard Judy Millerist excuse for doing so: “You are as only as good as your (anonymous) sources — who happens to be the palimony lawyer for the sex Senator’s baby mom who is who also negotiating the fee for her Playboy “bares all” package with the people whom the people reporting the story work for.”
Senator Tuma’s son — a career prosecutor, if I understand this correctly — was recently appointed to a ranking undersecretarial post in the Ministry of Justice.
Se o banqueiro não passa de vítima de uma armação montada pela Telecom Italia e se nunca contratou operações ilegais, como explicar a história do dossiê? E o que dizer da participação de Holder? Há uma última dúvida: por que a tese do suborno ressurge justamente agora? Certo é que Dantas continua réu do processo da 5ª Vara Federal.
If the banker is a mere victim of a frame-up by Telecom Italia and never hired anyone to do anything illegal, how to explain the episode of the dossier? And what to say about Holder’s involvement. And a final question: Why revive the bribery theory now? The one thing for certain is that Dantas will continue to stand trial in the 5th Federal Criminal Bar.
Certo também é que o inquérito na PF sobre a confecção do dossiê entregue a Veja, apesar do ritmo lento, continua em andamento. Ambos, a depender das conclusões, podem levar o dono do Opportunity à cadeia. Um desfecho que o banqueiro quer impedir de todas as maneiras possíveis.
What is also certain is the federal police probe into the preparation of the dossier handed over to Veja, continues moving forward, although slowly. Both cases, depending on their outcomes, could send the man from Opportunity to jail. An ending to the story that the banker wants to prevent at any cost.
When Veja claimed that federal jailers had allowed the subject of an investigation , the federal police opened an investigation into the charge of serious police misconduct.
When they summoned Veja reporters and to ask them why they thought this was so, the Veja reporters and editors, and their laywers, screamed “politicized Gestapo!”
A recent poll here showed federal prosectors and federal police officials with the highest level of public credibility of any group in Brazilian society.
I translated an earlier report on the “Dantas dossier” into my notes a while back, a report from the newsroom at Terra, from May 16, 2006, on the Veja report in question:
A Polícia Federal (PF) instaurou, na segunda-feira, um inquérito policial para apurar as denúncias contidas na reportagem “A Guerra nos Porões”, publicada na edição desta semana da revista Veja que envolvem. As informações envolvem o presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva e várias autoridades do governo, entre eles, o o diretor-geral da PF, delegado Paulo Fernando da Costa Lacerda.
The federal police (PF) launched an investigation on Monday into the accusations contained in the article “War in the [Torture] Dungeons,” published in this week’s Veja magazine. The statements in question involve the president of Brazil and other government officials, including the head of the federal police Paulo Lacerda.
Porão is a loaded term, I think, recalling the torture cellars of the bad old days.
A reportagem de Veja afirma que o banqueiro Daniel Dantas denunciou que foi perseguido no governo Lula por não aceitar “pedidos de propina” e afirmou que membros do governo, incluindo o presidente, têm contas secretas no exterior. As informações estariam em documento levado pelo senador Arthur Virgílio, do PSDB, à CPI dos Bingos.
The report in Veja magazine states that banker Daniel Dantas claims he was persecuted by the Lula government because he refused “requests for bribes” and stated that members of the government, including the president, have secret accounts abroad. The information was allegedly contained in a document delivered by Arthur Virgilio (PSDB) to the CPI of Bingos.
He told a New York federal court, in the case brought against him by Citi — it wants its freaking $300 million back! — that he was the victim of political persecution by, as his trustee and friend Mangabeira Unger said, “the most corrupt government in the history of Brazil.”
Which I find just astonishing.
Bingos are a pillar of the underground, er, aleatory leisure activities industry. They pay off pols and cops. They are illegal, but operate openly. This is a bingo in the Southern Zone of São Paulo:
I remember my first visit to São Paulo, during which bingos were ostentatiously raided and shut down. They reopened within two or three days, and have boomed ever since.
The CPI of Bingos generated lots of sound and fury. An aide to the minister of the Casa Civil was accused of “extorting” a bingo operator for “irregular contributions” to the Workers Party (PT) campaign coffers.
The meeting was recorded on hidden cameras in an alleged entrapment scheme by the bingo and bicho banker. As the Estadão noted the other day, no one has been found guilty because the prosecutors say “it is difficult to find evidence of wrongdoing.” A Boston-area lottery technology firm called GTech was involved in some way.
You start to think that maybe Boston, Massachussetts and its environs might be this grotesquely mobbed-up place, you know?
Magalhães deplored “impunity” and “cover-up” in the affair in a speech calling for the purification of the nation on the floor of the Senate the other day. Magalhães was indicted in 2002 on charges of wiretapping political adversaries in Bahia. Massively. He got off and kept his seat. How did that happen, anyway?
Weird shit. Very, very reminiscent of the Ahumada affair in Mexico, in many ways.
Howard Hunt died last week, by the way. Allegedly.
O documento teria sido escrito por advogados de Daniel Dantas e teria sido repassado à Justiça de Nova York, onde o banqueiro está sendo processado pelo Citigroup por fraude e negligência. Ainda segundo a Veja, além do presidente Lula, os ex-ministros José Dirceu, da Casa Civil, Antonio Palocci, da Fazenda, Luiz Gushiken e o atual titular da Justiça, Márcio Thomaz Bastos teriam contas no exterior.
The document was allegedly written by attorneys for Daniel Dantas and was handed over to a New York court, where the banker was being sued by Citigroup for fraud and negligence. Again, according to Veja, besides Lula, former ministers Zé Dirceu, Antonio Palocci, Luiz Gushiken and the current Minister of Justice also had secret foreign accounts.
I should see if I can find that filing on the court Web site.
A reportagem provocou reação exasperada do presidente Lula, que disse que Veja mentia. “Vamos ser francos, a Veja tem alguns jornalistas que estão merecendo o prêmio Nobel de irresponsabilidade. Eu só posso considerar isso um crime praticado por um jornalista ou por uma revista. Eu não posso comparar isso a jornalismo,” disse o presidente direto de Viena, onde participava de encontro entre governantes da União Européia e Mercosul.
The report drew an exasperated response from the President, who said that the magazine was lying. “Let us be frank about this. There are journalists out there who are bucking for a Nobel Prize in irresponsibility. I cannot help but think that when a journalist or magazine does this, they are perpetrating a crime. I can see nothing about it that resembles journalism,” said the president, direct from Vienna, where he was taking part in a meeting between Mercosul and EU heads of state.
O inquérito da Polícia Federal verificará as denúncias apresentadas contra o diretor e a autenticidade do dossiê apresentado pela revista e sua origem.
The PF inquiry will check on the accusations made against the bank director and the authenticity and origin of the dossier presented by the magazine.
A investigação será comandada pelo delegado Disney Rosseti. Lacerda já colocou à disposição da equipe de investigação seu sigilo bancário tanto no Brasil quanto no exterior. A PF deve pedir explicações a todos os envolvidos no caso.
The investigation will be headed by senior investigator Disney Rosseti. Lacerda has already given the financial investigations teams access to his banking records in Brazil and abroad. The PF is expected to ask for explanations from everyone involved.
Police inspector Disney? Really?
And what was the upshot of that investigation, anyway?
Did accused telecoms dirty warrior Daniel Dantas (far right) pay off journalists to bleat nonexistent facts very, very loudly on his behalf? Stay tuned.