“Minister Alexandre de Moraes can, indeed, be sanctioned again by the Magnitsky Law. There are clear precedents for this”: the statement comes from lawyer Martin De Luca, who represents former president Donald Trump and the Rumble platform in actions pending in the United States courts. In an exclusive interview, De Luca commented on the developments in the process involving the minister of the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) and assessed that there are sufficient elements for a new round of international sanctions.
According to the lawyer, the current phase of the process in the United States represents “an inevitable advance given the stance adopted by Alexandre de Moraes”. For De Luca, the minister was deliberately avoiding formal service on American territory, which led the federal judge responsible for the case to consider alternative means of notification.
He highlighted that, as recorded in the court decision, there is broad public knowledge of the action, including by Brazilian authorities, in addition to public statements by Moraes himself about the need to hire lawyers in the United States.
De Luca also drew attention to the actions of the Attorney General’s Office (AGU), stating that, despite announcements about hiring law firms in the USA, no one had, in fact, formally attended the process. For the lawyer, this scenario reinforces the thesis that the minister has full knowledge of the action, which would justify the continuation of the case, including the possibility of summons by email.
Institutional shielding
Asked about the delay in processing a summons request that would be under analysis at the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), De Luca stated that, from the defense’s perspective, there is institutional shielding in progress. According to him, the procedure adopted is absolutely common and follows international treaties, being used daily in similar cases.
“The fact that this request did not move forward demonstrates extraordinary treatment of the minister. It is a normal function of the system, but here we see tools being used to protect him,” he said. He compared the strategy adopted in Moraes’ case to that used by the minister himself in actions against Rumble, highlighting that, this time, the defense claims to have strictly followed all official channels.
US has already resumed Magnitksy in other cases
When commenting on the history involving the possible application of the Magnitsky Law, De Luca recalled that Alexandre de Moraes was already on American sanctions lists, and was later removed. For him, this does not prevent new sanctions from being imposed, especially in light of new facts and the continuation of conduct that would have motivated previous measures.
“It wouldn’t be the first time that the United States has lifted sanctions and then imposed them again,” he recalled. As an example, he cited the case of Venezuela, where economic sanctions were applied during the first Trump administration, partially suspended during the Biden administration after promises by the Nicolás Maduro regime and, later, reevaluated due to non-compliance with these promises.
Moraes did not change his behavior
According to the lawyer, the reasons that led to Alexandre de Moraes’ initial sanction remain relevant. He mentioned official statements from the US State Department and stated that there was an expectation of a change in behavior, which, according to him, did not materialize.
“The attitude remains basically the same. The fines continue to be accumulated, and the situation that generated the sanctions is not manifesting itself differently”, he assessed. For De Luca, the reapplication of sanctions is a real possibility, although it depends exclusively on the decision of the North American government.
At the end of the interview, the lawyer reinforced that there are clear international precedents for this type of measure and that the case continues to evolve in the United States courts, with impacts that could go beyond the legal sphere and reach the diplomatic field.
SEE ALSO:
- Telmo Martinello warns against using faith as a political platform
