“Nova” Lei de IMPROBIDADE ADMINISTRATIVA (RESUMO) - Lei 8.429/92 ATUALIZADA (após mudanças)

Summary

In this video, Cíntia Brunelli provides a comprehensive overview of Brazil's Law of Administrative Improbity (Law 8.429/1992) and its recent updates. She explains the concept of administrative improbity, which includes actions like illicit enrichment, damage to public finances, and violation of public administration principles. The video also covers key legal changes, such as the requirement for dolo (intentionality), the expansion of penalties, and the shift in the law's application, notably in the areas of nepotism and statute of limitations. Brunelli emphasizes the importance of understanding these laws for public exams and offers educational resources to support students' legal studies.

Takeaways

• 😀 Improbidade administrativa refers to actions taken by public agents that violate public administration principles, causing harm or illicit enrichment.
• 😀 The law governing improbidade (Law No. 8.429) applies to not only public servants but also public agents, political agents, and anyone holding a public position or role, regardless of remuneration.
• 😀 Improbidade administrative is considered a civil offense, not a crime, though criminal charges can be applied in cases of public administration crimes.
• 😀 The law classifies actions of improbidade into three main categories: illicit enrichment, harm to public assets (prejuízo ao erário), and violation of public administration principles.
• 😀 Illicit enrichment occurs when a public agent uses their position to gain personal or third-party financial advantages unlawfully, such as receiving bribes for facilitating public contracts.
• 😀 Harm to public assets refers to actions that result in financial loss to the public sector, such as overpricing goods or services purchased with public funds without a justifiable reason.
• 😀 The primary difference between illicit enrichment and harm to public assets is that the former benefits the agent directly, while the latter only causes harm to public finances without direct gain for the agent.
• 😀 Violations of public administration principles involve actions that breach fundamental ethical standards like honesty, impartiality, and legality, often with significant repercussions for the public trust.
• 😀 Recent changes to the law include the requirement for intentional (dolo) wrongdoing to classify actions as improbidade, excluding negligence, carelessness, or lack of skill.
• 😀 The statute of limitations for prosecuting improbidade cases has increased from 5 to 8 years, while the prosecutor’s office now holds exclusive power to file actions, preventing misuse of the law for political purposes.

Q & A

What is the primary objective of the Administrative Improbity Law?

The primary objective of the Administrative Improbity Law is to safeguard the integrity and legality of public administration, preventing actions that cause harm or enrichment through improper means.

Who is considered a public agent under the Administrative Improbity Law?

A public agent is broadly defined by the law, including not only civil servants but also political agents, and individuals holding positions, whether temporarily or without remuneration, such as elected officials, appointees, or those with any form of public service link.

Is administrative improbity classified as a criminal act?

No, administrative improbity is a civil act, not a criminal one. However, it is possible for an individual to face criminal charges if their actions also constitute crimes against public administration.

What are the three main types of administrative improbity classified by the law?

The law classifies administrative improbity into three main categories: enrichment through illicit means, harm to public funds (prejudice to the treasury), and violation of public administration principles.

What constitutes illicit enrichment under the Administrative Improbity Law?

Illicit enrichment occurs when a public agent uses their position to obtain an undue financial benefit, either for themselves or for others, by exploiting public resources or using public office for personal gain.

What is meant by 'prejudice to the treasury' in the context of administrative improbity?

Prejudice to the treasury refers to actions or omissions that result in a financial loss to the public sector, such as overpricing purchases made with public funds or misappropriating state assets.

How does the law differentiate between illicit enrichment and harm to public funds?

Illicit enrichment focuses on the personal gain of the public agent, while harm to public funds concerns the damage to public property, without the agent personally benefiting from it. If the agent does profit, it is considered illicit enrichment.

What actions are considered violations of the principles of public administration?

Violations of public administration principles involve actions that undermine honesty, impartiality, legality, or loyalty to public institutions, such as disclosing confidential information or favoring individuals with privileged information.

What were the significant changes made to the Administrative Improbity Law?

Key changes include the requirement for intent (dolo) to establish improbity, the introduction of nepotism as an act of improbity, and an extension of the prescription period for investigating acts of improbity from 5 to 8 years.

What changes were made regarding penalties for public agents found guilty of administrative improbity?

Penalties have been revised, with increased suspension periods for political rights and higher fines for agents found guilty of illicit enrichment or harming public funds. For violations of public administration principles, the suspension of political rights has been eliminated.