Brazil’s Federal Police have launched the third phase of Operation Transparência, executing search warrants in São Paulo and the Federal District as they investigate allegations of influence peddling, passive corruption and money laundering involving federal congressman Cezinha de Madureira and his wife. The measures were authorized by Supreme Court Justice Flávio Dino.¹

Investigators’ account centers on whether Madureira, a PL lawmaker from São Paulo, used the standing of his office to persuade clients that he could secure personal intervention from senior judges. According to Dino’s ruling, the inquiry examines an alleged division of roles: a congressional staffer would identify cases and prepare submissions, Madureira’s wife would handle legal-fee contracts or credit assignments, and the congressman would make contacts with judges.²

The reported conversations include Madureira saying he had spoken with Supreme Court Justice André Mendonça and a senior superior-court judge, and that he would ask Justice Kassio Nunes Marques for help in a case. Dino said such wording suggested more than routine delivery of legal documents: it indicated an undertaking to make a “personal and direct request to the judge.”²

The police and Dino draw a clear boundary around the allegation. Although the inquiry cites the names of Nunes Marques, Mendonça and Gilmar Mendes, no member of the judiciary is under investigation. Dino wrote: “What is being investigated is the trading of influence by those who offered and priced it, not the conduct of those presented to third parties as influenceable.”² Police said they had found no evidence that judges participated in the suspected conduct.¹

Madureira’s defense rejects the allegations. In a statement, it said the congressman was available to authorities, trusted the justice system and expected the process to show that “no irregularity was committed.” It also argued that high-profile measures should be carried out at greater distance from the current political and electoral environment.²

A separate account of the operation similarly notes that investigators are focused on alleged claims of influence over judicial outcomes, rather than on evidence of wrongdoing by the judges themselves.³