Month: March 2019

The maintenance of pre-trial detention due to the impossibility of paying bail constitutes an illegal embarrassment. With this understanding, the 11th Panel of the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region granted Habeas Corpus to reduce the amount of bail of R $ 40 thousand to R $ 4,6 thousand – five minimum wages – imposed on a resident of Amparo (SP) for the practice of child pornography.


Why the defendant gets arrested?

Why the defendant gets arrested?

The defendant was arrested in December of 2016 for the alleged practice of child pornography crimes under Articles 241-A and 241-B of the Child and Adolescent Statute (ECA). The arrest in flagrante was approved and converted into a preventive by the State Court, which declined jurisdiction for the Federal Court in Campinas.

The 9th Federal Court of Campinas revoked the preventive custody by means of the payment of bail in the amount of R $ 40 thousand. In addition, it applied other precautionary measures.

Request bail


The defense then requested the grant of provisional release without bail, claiming that it was a person whose monthly income was approximately R $ 2,000. The claim, however, was dismissed by the court of the first instance, on the ground that the claim of poverty was not demonstrated.

Against the decision, the defendant appealed to TRF-3, pointing out illegal embarrassment, since it was only in custody due to the impossibility of paying the arbitrated bond. In analyzing the case, federal magistrate José Lunardelli concluded that the maintenance of the constriction solely due to the failure to collect bail constitutes a manifestly illegal constraint.

Considering the information in the file, attached bank statements and a large amount of computer equipment seized in the patient’s residence, the rapporteur understood that he can afford to pay at least five minimum salaries.


Bail imposed on the defendant

Bail imposed on the defendant

In granting part of the Habeas Corpus order to reduce the amount of bail imposed on the defendant, the 11th Panel maintained the other precautionary measures imposed by the courts of first instance as a biweekly appearance at the court and a ban on absences from the municipalities of Amparo (SP) and Campinas (SP), without prior judicial authorization. With information from the Press Office of TRF-3.