PGR asks Guedes for information about his daughter’s alleged failure to act offshore

The PGR (Attorney General’s Office) asked in a preliminary procedure that Minister Paulo Guedes (Economy) explain why he would have omitted from the Presidency’s Public Ethics Commission that his daughter is an offshore partner held in the British Virgin Islands.

In the piece, the Prosecutor’s Office records that it filed the procedure that investigated the case, but states that the news about the minister’s daughter’s performance represents “evidence elements” that make Guedes’s new manifestation in this regard necessary.

The existence of the minister’s company in the country known for being a tax haven was revealed in October last year by the magazine Piauí and the newspaper El País, which participate in the project of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the ICIJ.

According to the report, in 2015 Guedes had US$9.5 million (approximately R$51 million in current values) held in an account in the name of offshore Dreadnoughts International.

Guedes’ defense said that the legality of the minister’s acts has already been demonstrated and will be resubmitted to the PGR.

“The case has already been shelved, and there was no need for any testimony from the Minister, precisely because the defense’s explanations were enough to clarify the episode as a whole and demonstrate the legality of Paulo Guedes’ acts, in his public and private life. defense will submit to the PGR, again, all documentation that unequivocally demonstrates that the Minister did not practice any illicit, omissive or unethical act”, said, in a note, lawyers Ticiano Figueiredo and Pedro Ivo Velloso.

The PGR’s action was a response to the representation presented by deputies Elias Vaz (PSB-GO), Kim Kataguiri (União Brasil-SP), Lídice da Mata (PSB-BA) and Bira do Pindaré (PSB-MA).

In the representation sent to the Prosecutor’s Office, the parliamentarians claim that the information about the participation of Guedes’ daughter in offshore was provided by the minister himself to the Chamber of Deputies.

According to them, Guedes told the Ethics Committee as soon as he took over the Ministry of Economy that he had withdrawn from offshore and that he would not have any relatives working in the company.

The document sent to the Legislature, however, shows that the daughter acts as a director of the company.

“The representation under study, however, also raises the hypothesis that the Minister of Economy would have omitted sensitive data in its Confidential Information Declaration, which would need to be screened by the Public Ethics Commission, given the possibility of a possible conflict of interest “, says the prosecutor’s piece.

In the request, the deputies say that the case may constitute a crime of insider trading, which means the use of relevant information not yet revealed to the market in the handling of money in the financial market.

After the news about Guedes’ offshore company was released, he admitted that he sent the resource to his company based in the tax haven to escape taxes levied in the United States.

According to the minister, the funds were sent between 2014 and 2015 for investment in American stocks. Guedes stated that he received the suggestion of advisers at the time, as a way to avoid taxes in the United States in the event of his death.

American legislation taxes on almost 50% the resources of individuals transferred to heirs. In Brazil, states charge a similar tax through the ITCMD (Transmission Tax Cause Mortis and Donation) – which reaches up to 8%.

“If you have a deed in the name of an individual and you die, 46% is expropriated by the US government. […]. So if you use offshore, you can make that investment. If you die, instead of going to the American government, you go to the succession,” she said.

The series of reports on the case revealed that the president of the Central Bank, Roberto Campos Neto, also had offshore operations abroad. In December of last year, the PGR filed the preliminary investigation that determined the fairness of the two’s money.

At the time, the Prosecutor’s Office said it had no reason to carry out an investigation because “neither the criminal offense nor any suitable indication of its existence has been demonstrated.”