Daniel Valente Dantas. Graphic: Veja magazine, May 2006, when it reported: “Daniel Dantas has a list that may show illegal offshore bank accounts controlled by the president and party bigwigs.” Veja had plenty of evidence that “almost certainly does not” was the word to use instead of “may.” Ecce Veja.
Observations from Brazilian business journalist — and self-appointed bete noir to the sort of “journalism” practiced by the Veja newsweekly (Editora Abril) — Luis Nassif on testimony yesterday by MIT-trained banker and former financial consultant to the dark forces of Carlismo, Daniel Dantas, before a parliamentary commission of inquiry on wiretapping, court-authorized and illegal, in Brazil. On which see
Daniel Dantas declarou que não foi ele quem contratou a Kroll para espionar inimigos: foi a Brasil Telecom. Pouco importa se, na época, era controlada por ele.
Dantas declared it was not he who hired Kroll to spy on enemies: It was Brasil Telecom. No matter that Brasil Telecom was controlled by Dantas at the time.
Actually, he also denied that Kroll was hired to spy, rather than simply “investigate.”
The interesting thing is that Kroll also denies it, arguing in a lawsuit against a former employee that that employee had a parallel contract with Dantas at a time when he was still acting as a freelance account manager for Kroll on the BrT account. See
- From The Holder Folder: “Kroll Role Imperiled by Ferrell
- Was Holder A Mole? Kroll: “We Frankly Do Not Know”
- Dantas’ Inferno: Holder Drills a Hole in Kroll?
- Dantas’ Inferno: “Citi Conspiratorially Subverted Me With Leaks”
Poor Kroll: The more it insists it is mainly just a bunch of beancounters poring over obscure public records in Argentine notary public offices on behalf of the insurance company that owns it — which is not an insanely implausible claim to make, as far as I can see — the more the Brazilian press portrays it as the dark, mysterious and all-powerful Blackwater of private-sector black-bag dirty tricks.
Deixou claro que a peça central de sua defesa é trazer para o Brasil o inquérito do Ministério Público italiano sobre a atuação da Telecom Itália lá. Aliás, o inquérito chegou e não tinha nada sobre a atuação da Telecom Itália aqui.
Dantas made it clear that the centerpiece of his defense is to bring the Italian prosecutor’s investigation into Telecom Italia’s conduct there into the Brazilian case. That investigation has alreadly reached Brazil, however, and contains nothing concerning Telecom Italia’s activities in Brazil.
This is what Mino Carta calls the “spy v. spy” element of this complex case: TI was working to wrest control of BrT from the management group led by Dantas.
In that context, there are rumors and leaked uncorroborated testimony floating around about colorful goings on in a Rio de Janeiro hotel, where TI-employed hackers allegedly did some “war-driving” against computers of Opportunity personnel.
Fascinating story in its own right. Secure your WiFi connection! Do it now!
See the confusingly headlined
Declarou ter “recebido uma informação” de que a operação Satiagraha foi ordenada pelo diretor geral da Abin, delegado Paulo Lacerda. Não disse de quem veio a informação, não disse quais elementos dispunha para comprovar sua veracidade. Disse não se lembrar sobre quem tinha passado a informação para ele.
Dantas said he had “received a report” that Operation Satyagraha was ordered by ABIN ["the Brazilian CIA"] director Paulo Lacerda. He did not say who the information came from, he did not say what reasons he had to believe it was true. He said he could not remember who had passed this information to him.
Lacerda had been chief of the federal police.
The Dantas dossier that ran in Veja magazine in May 2006, rigged up by Frank Holder (formerly?) of Kroll accused him of having bribe-stuffed bank accounts in offshore banking paradises.
Mesmo assim, mereceu manchete de capa da “Folha”: “Ação da PM [sic] foi represália de diretor da Abin, diz Dantas” pela matéria sobre as supostas contas de autoridades brasileiras no exterior. E mereceu chamada de capa do “Estadão”: “PF mirava até filho de Lula, diz Dantas”.
Even so, the Folha de S. Paulo thought the story deserved the following headline: “Federal police action was act of revenge by ABIN director, Dantas says.” An act of revenge for the Veja story about the supposed offshore bank accounts of senior officials. The Estadão also gave it a front-page headline: “Federal police was even looking at Lula’s son, says Dantas.”
E quem disse isso é a mesma pessoa que afirmou que não tinha nada a ver com os grampos da Kroll: que a responsabilidade era da Brasil Telecom – que até minha filha caçula sabia que era controlada por ele.
The person saying this is the same who said he had nothing to do with the Kroll bugs: That they were ordered by Brasil Telecom, which even my youngest daughter knowns was controlled by Dantas.
Nassif published pictures of his daughters recently. The frumpy-looking guy — I can say this because I am not exactly Tyrone Power myself — must have an extraordinarily good-looking spoue.
This was what really pissed off the other partners in the company: That Brasil Telecom was footing the bill for Dantas’ legal (and possibly illegal) efforts to keep them from removing him from management, rather than Opportunity Fund footing the legal bills to advocate its own claim.
Hoje em dia não há nenhuma dúvida sobre a atuação de Dantas. E não há nenhuma mancha sobre a carreira do juiz De Sanctis e o delegado Protógenes. Mas são ambos que estão na berlinda, como mostra a coluna do Clóvis Rossi, repercutindo a “pegadinha” da manchete da “Folha”, sobre a história do país civilizado (clique aqui).
These days there is no doubt about Dantas’ actions. And there is no stain on the reputation of Judge de Sanctis and federal investigator Quieroz. Even so, both of them have been called onto the carpet, as Clovis Rossi demonstrates in a column dedicated to the “gotcha” headline in the Folha …
Friends here always say about Rossi, “He used to be such a fine journalist, how did he degenerate into this gabbling fascistoid we now see everyday on page 2 of the Folha?”
Nassif quotes Rossi, who writes:
É fenomenal a capacidade de produzir disparates que demonstram, no Brasil, até pessoas aparentemente bem preparadas. O caso mais recente é o do juiz Fausto Martin De Sanctis, para quem o Brasil “não é um país civilizado”.
The capacity of even apparently well-educated persons here in Brazil for producing gabbling nonsense is phenomenal. The most recent case is that of judge Fausto Martin de Sanctis, in whose view Brazil “is not a civilized nation.”
Without overgeneralizing, I would say that I have witnessed some of the most uncivilized behavior I have ever seen in my life since I started living down here. And not just in São Paulo traffic, either, although that is jaw-dropping enough at times.
OK, até aí eu vou.
Okay, even I will go along with that.
Mas o corolário desse raciocínio é que configura o disparate: “Temos que fazer uma lei adequada ao nosso país. Não adianta querer fazer lei de país civilizado, porque esse país não é“.
But it is the corollary to this line of reasoning that produces the nonsense: “We need to produce a law adequate to the needs of our country. There is no point in producing a law designed for a civilized country, because Brazil is not that.”
Nassif now returns to comment on the Folha columnist’s rhetorical sally:
A posição do juiz envolve uma discussão secular na jurisprudência brasileira, que vem desde Oliveira Vianna, no início do século: deve o Brasil importar leis e instituições de outros países e outras realidades? Há toda uma bibliografia sobre o tema mostrando vantagens e desvantagens dessa importação de leis que não casam com o ambiente interno brasileiro.
The judge’s statement involves an age-old debate in Brazilian jurisprudence which goes back to Oliveira Vianna in the early 1900s: Should Brazil import laws and institutions from other nations, with other social realities? There is a vast bibliography on the advantages and disadvantages of this important of laws that do not jibe well with the Brazilian domestic reality.
Mas não é esse o caso.
But that is not the issue here.
Diz o Rossi:
Writes Rossi:
Não seria mais sensato, mais lógico, mais tudo, civilizar o país para que nele caibam as boas invenções de seres humanos civilizados em vez de fazer leis adequadas ao estado de incivilidade?
Would it not be more sensible, more logical, more everything, to first civilize the nation so that the useful inventions of civilized human beings would apply to it, rather than adapting our lies to the current state of incivility?
This is the kind of logic-chopping nonsense that makes me spend my R$2.50 daily newspaper budget on the Estadão.
Comments Nassif:
Perfeito! Na prática vamos ver quem está a fim de instituir a civilidade e quem defende o que Rossi chama de “incivilidade”.
Perfect! As a matter of fact, we are about to find out who is willing to institute civility and who defends what Rossi calls “incivility.”
Na sua apresentação, De Sanctis deixou claro que os tais “países civilizados” têm legislação muitíssimo mais severa contra o crime organizado, que permite anos de escuta, têm penas severíssimas que abrem espaço para acordos de delação premiada. Aqui, diz o Juiz, essas práticas seriam consideradas inconstitucionais.
In his statement to the commission, De Santcis made it clear that these “civilized countries” have laws that are much, much stricter on organized crime, permitting years of wiretapping and providing very severe sentences that open the way for plea bargaining in exchange for turning state’s evidence. Here, the judge said, these practices wold be considered unconstitutional.
Study the enforcement history of the Foreign Corrupt Pratices Act sometime if you start getting an inferiority complex in comparison with the majesty of American democracy.
In theory, if you are Chiquita Banana and you pay millions of dollars to fund and arm the AUC (and the FARC, too, thoughthe FARC was cheaper), the righteous flaming sword of the law descends upon you. But the reality is otherwise.
Ou seja, o Brasil não tem práticas de países civilizados porque há complacência com o crime organizado. Ainda não se aprendeu a separar os direitos individuais de criminosos da luta mais ampla contra o crime.
That is to say, [Nassif continues,] Brazil has not adopted the practices of civilized nations in that it is complacent with organized crime. It has not learned how to balance the individual rights of criminals against a wider assault on crime.
Quem defende as práticas de países civilizados, de endurecimento contra o crime organizado? O juiz De Sanctis e o delegado Protógenes, enfrentando inclusive resistências de instâncias superiores e atendo-se aos limites impostos pela lei brasileira.
Who is defending the practices of civilized countries here, which is to take hard measures against organized crime? Judge De Sanctis and federal investigator Queiroz, who have even faced resistance from their higher-ups and run up against the limits imposed by current Brazilian law.
Quem é contra as práticas de países civilizados? Quem considera abusiva qualquer ação mais pesada contra o crime organizado.
Who is against the practices of civilized countries? The person who thinks that any harsher action against organized crime is abusive.
On an extreme form of this attitude — “If I go to jail for corruption, the terrorists win!” see also
Qualquer prática mais pesada contra o crime organizado é bombardeada inapelavelmente pela imprensa. O Rossi se lembra da capa passada da Veja dizendo que o Brasil inteiro está grampeado? Ou do carnaval da “Folha” sobre as senhas para grampo? O juiz explicou didaticamente cada atitude, do ponto de vista técnico, do ponto de vista do resguardo aos direitos individuais, mostrou que não havia abuso. As explicações não foram publicadas. Mas continua sendo atacado por uma frase solta.
Any more substantial measures against organized crime are bombarded without mercy by the press. Is Rossi thinking of the recent cover of Veja, according to which all of Brazil is being bugged? Or the carnival mounted by the Folha over the passwords for access to wiretap records? The judge patiently and professorially explained every point, from the technical point of view, from the point of view of safeguarding individual rights, he showed that no abuses had occurred. His explanations were not published. But he continues to be attacked over an isolated statement, taken out of context.
Hoje era o dia de Dantas. Mas De Sanctis conseguiu receber mais críticas do que o banqueiro por conta de uma frase solta. Não há uma coluna em sua defesa; uma coluna de crítica a Dantas. Quem representa, afinal, a civilidade e quem defende a “incivilidade”? Quem impede que o país aja como outros paises civilizados contra o crime organizado? Certamente não é De Sanctis nem Protógenes.
Today was Dantas’ day in the spotlight. But De Sanctis managed to garner more criticisms than the banker because of an isolated statement. There is not a single newspaper column defending him. Not a single column criticizing Dantas. Who, after all, represents civility and who defends “barbarity”? Who is preventing Brazil from acting in the way other countries do against organized crime? Not De Sanctis, and not Queiroz.
Filed under: Uncategorized
