Notícia

Understand why the STF rejected the house arrest request for Deolane

Por Equipe Editorial CifraNET · 24/05/2026

Influencer and lawyer Deolane Bezerra appealed to the Federal Supreme Court (STF) to try to reverse the preventive detention ordered as part of Operation Vérnix, which investigates an alleged money laundering structure attributed to the PCC (Primeiro Comando da Capital).

In the request presented to the Court, the defense sought to replace preventive detention with house arrest or alternative precautionary measures, arguing that Deolane is the mother of a child under 12 years of age and that the case should observe the understanding established by the STF in a previous judgment on the imprisonment of women in this condition. The action was distributed to Minister Flávio Dino, who denied the request.

The decision accessed by CNN, however, did not directly analyze whether or not Deolane has the right to house arrest.

The basis used by the minister was procedural: according to Dino, the instrument chosen by the defense in the form of a constitutional complaint was not the appropriate means to question the decision of the first instance.

What the defense asked the STF
In the petition, the defense claimed that the decision that decreed preventive detention failed to observe the understanding reached by the Supreme Court in collective HC 143,641, judged in 2018. At the time, the Court recognized the possibility of replacing preventive detention with home detention for pregnant women and mothers of young children in certain cases.

According to the document presented to the STF, Deolane has a 9-year-old daughter and, for this reason, the defense argued that house arrest should have been considered or, at least, specifically justified.

In addition, the lawyers argued that precautionary measures other than imprisonment would be sufficient, such as passport retention, electronic monitoring and a ban on leaving the country. The defense also challenged the grounds used to justify preventive detention.

According to the petition, "the decision (...) disregarded the fact that the Complainant has a minor daughter who is only 9 years old." The lawyers also maintained that the assets and financial transactions attributed to the influencer resulted from business activities and her public activities on social media.

Why Flávio Dino rejected the request
When deciding the case, the minister did not go into the merits of house arrest. Dino stated that the constitutional complaint has restricted possibilities of use and cannot function as a substitute for an appeal. In the decision, he wrote that "the complaint does not constitute a substitute for an appeal, meaning that it is not viable to use it as a procedural shortcut."

The minister also highlighted that the precedent cited by the defense provides that any non-compliance must be questioned through an appeal, and not directly by complaining to the STF.

Furthermore, Dino understood that granting habeas corpus ex officio at that time could represent suppression of the instance, since there had not yet been a decision by the competent bodies on the matter.

What the decision reproduces about the investigation
Although the focus of the trial was procedural, the decision reproduces excerpts from the decision that decreed preventive detention.

Among the grounds mentioned are the investigative thesis that Deolane had received amounts related to the so-called "financial closure" of the investigated structure, transactions considered incompatible with declared income and the existence of legal entities that, according to investigators, would present characteristics typical of money laundering vehicles.

The document also reproduces the argument used by the first instance that the crimes investigated were permanent in nature and that there would be a risk to the application of criminal law and the continuity of the activity investigated.

In the end, the minister noted that, even if the procedural obstacle was overcome, he did not identify "manifest illegality or teratology" that would justify granting habeas corpus ex officio.

Change imageChange image

1 of 5