Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro faces his second formal indictment, this time for money laundering

Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro faces his second formal indictment, this time for money laundering and criminal association involving undeclared diamonds from Saudi Arabia. This follows a previous accusation in March for allegedly falsifying his COVID-19 vaccination certificate. As the Supreme Court reviews the latest police report, Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet will decide on further actions.

In August 2023, police revealed that Jair Bolsonaro received nearly $70,000 from selling two luxury watches gifted by Saudi Arabia. Brazilian law mandates that citizens declare goods worth over $1,000 when arriving from abroad and pay a 50% tax on any excess value. Legal expert Renato Stanziola Vieira told the Associated Press that this indictment heightens Bolsonaro's legal troubles, which his supporters label as political persecution. Bolsonaro denies any wrongdoing. and criminal association involving undeclared diamonds from Saudi Arabia. This follows a previous accusation in March for allegedly falsifying his COVID-19 vaccination certificate. As the Supreme Court reviews the latest police report, Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet will decide on further actions.

In August 2023, police revealed that Jair Bolsonaro received nearly $70,000 from selling two luxury watches gifted by Saudi Arabia. Brazilian law mandates that citizens declare goods worth over $1,000 when arriving from abroad and pay a 50% tax on any excess value. Legal expert Renato Stanziola Vieira told the Associated Press that this indictment heightens Bolsonaro's legal troubles, which his supporters label as political persecution. Bolsonaro denies any wrongdoing. 

cgtnamerica

Justice delayed is justice denied

Martin Luther King Jr.

"Justice delayed is justice denied" 

is a legal maxim. It means that if legal redress or equitable relief to an injured party is available, but is not forthcoming in a timely fashion, it is effectively the same as having no remedy at all.^[1]

This principle is the basis for the right to a speedy trial and similar rights which are meant to expedite the legal system, because of the unfairness for the injured party who sustained the injury having little hope for timely and effective remedy and resolution. The phrase has become a rallying cry for legal reformers who view courts, tribunals, judges, arbitrators, administrative law judges,

 commissions^[A] or governments as acting too slowly in resolving legal issues — either because the case is too complex, the existing system is too complex or overburdened, or because the issue or party in question lacks political favour. Individual cases may be affected by judicial hesitancy to make a decision. Statutes and court rules have tried to control the tendency; and judges may be subject to oversight and even discipline for persistent failures to decide matters timely, or accurately report their backlog. When a court takes a matter "under advisement" – awaiting the issue of a judicial opinion, order or judgement and forestalls final adjudication of a lawsuit or resolution of a motion – the issue of timeliness of the decision(s) comes into play.

https://capitalparanaense.blogspot.com/2024/07/former-brazilian-president-jair.html