MP Guilherme Diret’s (PP-SP) opinion on the anti-factional bill revealed a mixture of political miscalculation, technical failures and frustrated attempts by the government and opposition to turn the debate on public security into an electoral asset for 2026. The assessment is taken from experts who listened to it value.
They also point to the “legal noise” in the text that redefines concepts, changes the rules for distributing resources and conflicts with prosecutorial standards and international agreements. In addition to not meeting the four points of concern highlighted by the Ministry of Justice, the report would also remove more than R$360 million from resources currently allocated to funds managed by the union.
The executive once again criticized the latest version of the opinion submitted on Wednesday (12), arguing that the text preserves changes that “limit the actions of the federal police and weaken the fight against criminal organizations.”
Under the text, resources allocated for public security funds will be shared with the states, when local authorities conduct investigations. According to the government, this means that the union will only receive some kind of funding when the investigation is conducted exclusively by the National Front.
Thus, the total impact will be R$ 367.48 million on three funds and two bodies. The biggest loss will be that of the National Anti-Drug Fund (Funad), which received R$271.9 million this year (74% of the total). Next will be the National Prison Fund (Funpen), which has already received R$65.1 million (17%). The third body in terms of loss of resources will be the Fund for the Equipment and Operation of Basic Activities of the Federal Police, FONAPOL. This utility has already received R$27.2 million (7.4%) of the total this year.
Leandro Pique, a professor at the University of São Paulo’s School of Multidimensional Security, sees problems with the rapporteur’s attempt to redistribute funds from confiscations. He added: “Today the Popular Front receives between 70% and 80% of these resources, and the proposal was moving towards favoring the states. This has become an institutional debate and will continue to be a target of pressure.”
Another discussion revolves around the wording of the expanded asset confiscation, Pique explains. “The tendency to broaden the wording and facilitate the request for confiscation is desirable in any legislation against organized crime. You need to facilitate the investigation to access evidence relating to the criminal’s property and allow the confiscation of associated assets,” he said.
Another point of concern is the establishment of the legal personality of the “criminal faction,” and the classification of the crime of joining a criminal faction. For the government, the opinion downplays this concept and puts criminal factions in the background. The assessment is that the change creates legal loopholes and makes it difficult to distinguish between ordinary crimes and actions carried out by organized factions.
The government says its proposal aims to financially strangle these groups, strengthen investigations, intelligence operations and repression. According to the executive, the report goes in the opposite direction because it weakens the tools used by the National Front and the states.
The executive also notes that there is a risk in Durrett’s view of “destabilizing” maximum security prisons and that the provision “sends more offenders into the federal system” at the same time as it removes resources from Funpen, “compromising the operational capacity of these units and increasing the risk of rebellion or loss of control.”
In Pique’s estimation, postponing the vote was strategic. “It is an obstacle to organisation. Leaders will speak, hear the veto and reach a decision. In the process, the government’s original project has gained weight in light of the rapporteur’s opinion.”
For him, the original anti-factional Liberal Party had its origins in the Public Ministry and was inspired by the Italian model of the Palermo Convention, giving it a more solid conceptual foundation.
From a political point of view, the impasse over the text has the backdrop of the electoral dispute of 2026. According to political scientist Cristiano Noronha, of Arko Advice, the massive police operation in Rio raised alarm in the government, which identified a decline in Lula’s popularity and began holding daily polls.
For him, the population’s growing concern about violence led Planalto to quickly put forward a strong proposal, while the opposition saw a way to ride the wave and regain some political science – having been stuck in recent months on the amnesty agenda and defending the role of federal representative Eduardo Bolsonaro (PL-SP) in clarifying the tariffs.
For Noronha, the president of the chamber, Hugo Motta (Republicanos-PB), is exhausted, because although he defended the choice of Dirret to report on the text, the course of the process was marked by setbacks, tensions with the government and dissatisfaction even on the part of the opposition. He added, “It seems that (Mota) is facing difficulties in expression. The president’s role is to reassure and open the way for negotiation. This has not happened yet.”
In a memorandum, Derret’s office said that the aim of the project, by regularizing the allocation of resources, is to strengthen the State Police, the Federal Police and the public ministries responsible for investigative activity: “The amounts seized from the criminal organizations must return to the institutions that effectively conducted the investigation, in order to strengthen the performance of the public security agent on the front line. The alternative also makes clear that the resources arising from the investigations conducted by the Federal Police themselves will remain under the responsibility of the Federation.”
Derrett’s memo also commented on the government’s project: “In practice, the State Criminal Code reduced the penalty. It created the so-called ‘distinctive criminal organization’, allowing the penalty to be reduced by up to 2/3 for core members.” He continued: “This means that a member of any faction can serve for a year and 8 months under an open regime, which is the exact opposite of harsh punishment. The rapporteur’s replacement removes this loophole, creates 11 new serious crimes, tightens criminal treatment and increases sentences in a real way: from 20 to 40 years for members and from 30 to 66 years and 8 months for leaders. For the first time, the head of a criminal organization will be able to serve 40 years.” years under a closed system.
In the memo, Derrett also said that the text sent by the executive did not contain effective tools for decapitalization. He added: “The financial procedures were weak and could not be applied until late, after the process had been opened.
The alternative is much stronger, as it allows the complete and immediate blocking of goods, assets and values that are already at the investigation stage, including cards, PIX, banking operations and crypto assets. Moreover, it creates an independent civil action for loss of assets, which is imprescriptible and can search for illegal assets in perpetuity, a tool that the government simply did not anticipate. It also allows early selling of shares and assets to prevent orange companies from continuing to operate.
Derrett continued his criticism of the government’s project: “Talking about probation without addressing criminal benefits does not solve the problem. The government’s legislative act did not abolish pardon, pardon and parole, but rather allowed a faster progression of punishment. The rapporteur’s alternative corrects this, really tightens it and closes all these doors: it abolishes pardon, pardon, pardon and parole, and increases the succession from 70% to 85% of the sentence. This is the lowest level already proposed in Brazil, and this prevents faction leaders from staying in prison for a period Short or restore legal privileges.
Dirit also said in the memorandum: “The government’s legislative code only expands the assumptions of Law 12850/2013, and maintains the current system (fragmented and with little normative force). It does not specify the destination of confiscated assets, does not create clear rules for the abolition of capital and does not create an independent legal framework. The alternative, in turn, creates a completely new diploma, with greater explanatory power, representing new types of organized crime (territorial) domination, new anarchy, sabotage, attacks (on financial institutions and prisons) and establishes a complete system for determining the destination of confiscated assets: division between the National Front and the states and their allocation to FONAPOL and the Public Security Fund. In addition, it transforms confiscated assets into immediate public resources, ensuring the real financial disruption of criminal organizations and the use of these assets to enhance public security.
PL leader in the chamber, MP Sosthenes Cavalcante (RJ), said value The strategy will be to provide a bright spot to tighten the project and try to return to equating criminal factions with terrorism. The government must move to negotiate the points of concern. The leaders’ meeting on Tuesday (18) will have one agenda to discuss the text and try to vote on it. Until then, further changes of opinion are expected. Motta was contacted, but he did not speak.
About The Author
