No criminal conviction required. BRL 190.3 million (approximately USD 38 million) in assets targeted. A new chapter in Brazil’s fight against organized crime.

On October 20, 2026, Brazil’s Office of the Attorney General of the Union (Advocacia-Geral da União – AGU) filed four autonomous civil asset forfeiture actions seeking to recover approximately BRL 190.3 million in assets allegedly linked to organized crime.

The actions were filed in federal courts in Paraná, São Paulo, and Rio Grande do Sul under Law No. 15,358/2026, enacted on March 24, 2026, and commonly known as the Anti-Criminal Factions Law (Lei Antifacção) or the Raul Jungmann Law.

They are the first federal actions under the law’s new mechanism for autonomous civil forfeiture, which allows the State to pursue illicit assets without first obtaining a criminal conviction.

THE FOUR CASES

Three of the lawsuits, involving 87 defendants and approximately BRL 82 million, stem from investigations into criminal networks associated with the Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC), one of Brazil’s most powerful criminal organizations.

Operations Marola, Delivery, and Contaminatus uncovered schemes to smuggle Paraguayan cigarettes and prohibited agricultural chemicals across the border.

The fourth lawsuit, arising from Operation Hinterland, targets approximately BRL 108.2 million in assets allegedly connected to international cocaine trafficking to Europe and to money laundering. That investigation originated in the SKY ECC case.

Investigators identified financial transactions exceeding BRL 230 million, as well as real estate, aircraft, luxury vehicles, companies, and precious stones.

Authorities also found links between some of the suspects and a member of the Comando Vermelho (CV), another major Brazilian criminal organization, although formal membership in that organization was not established.

WHAT DOES THE NEW LAW PROVIDE?

Chapter IV of Law No. 15,358/2026 (Articles 12–27) establishes an autonomous civil forfeiture mechanism with several noteworthy features.

1. No prior criminal conviction is required
Under Article 17, civil forfeiture does not depend on establishing individual civil or criminal liability, nor on the outcome of related criminal proceedings. There is one important exception: a criminal judgment expressly finding that the alleged criminal act did not occur bars civil forfeiture on that basis.

2. The proceedings target assets, not persons
Article 12 authorizes the extinguishment of ownership, possession, and other rights over assets that constitute the direct or indirect proceeds of unlawful activity or are otherwise connected to offenses covered by the law. Article 13 extends this to instrumentalities, assets intended for criminal use, property used to conceal illicit wealth, and assets acquired through subsequent transactions involving such property.

3. Value-based confiscation is expressly permitted
Under Article 12(2), courts may order the forfeiture of assets of equivalent value when the original proceeds cannot be located or are held abroad – a relevant tool against sophisticated transnational money-laundering schemes.

4. No limitation period applies
Article 12(3) expressly declares civil forfeiture actions imprescriptible, although the constitutionality and scope of this provision may well come under judicial scrutiny.

5. International cooperation is expressly contemplated
Article 14 allows the forfeiture of assets located in Brazil even when the underlying unlawful activity took place abroad. In the absence of an applicable treaty, assets recovered at the request of a foreign authority – or the proceeds of their sale – are, as a rule, shared equally between Brazil and the requesting State, after deduction of related expenses.

6. Prosecutors also have standing
Article 18 authorizes the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF), state prosecution services, and public entities such as the AGU to bring civil forfeiture actions within their respective spheres of competence.

7. Provisional measures are available
Article 22 allows courts to grant urgent protective measures to prevent the dissipation of assets, even before their owners have been identified. The law also protects victims and bona fide third parties who could not reasonably have known of the illicit origin, use, or destination of the property.

INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT

Brazil’s new framework is part of a broader international shift toward non-conviction-based (NCB) asset recovery. Comparable – though structurally distinct – mechanisms exist in the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, and Colombia.

Article 54(1)(c) of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) encourages States Parties to consider allowing confiscation without a criminal conviction in appropriate cases. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has likewise strengthened its standards on asset recovery, provisional measures, and confiscation, including non-conviction-based mechanisms, consistent with the fundamental principles of domestic law.

The underlying premise is straightforward: criminal wealth should not remain beyond the State’s reach simply because a criminal conviction cannot be obtained.

FOLLOW THE MONEY

A particularly interesting aspect of the Brazilian initiative is the interagency methodology behind it. According to Brazil’s Ministry of Justice, the Strategic Laboratory against Crime (LabCrim), within the Department of Asset Recovery and International Legal Cooperation (DRCI), developed a methodology that cross-references financial and property data held by different public institutions, including the Federal Revenue Service, the National Council of Justice (CNJ), the Office of the Comptroller General (CGU), and the AGU.

Among other indicators, the methodology flags high-value real estate registered to individuals whose apparent financial capacity is inconsistent with the property they hold and who have known connections to criminal organizations.

The AGU is responsible for bringing the resulting civil actions before the courts – although this does not prevent prosecutors from doing the same.

This is a significant institutional development: financial intelligence is being turned into judicial asset recovery proceedings.

EFFECTIVENESS AND THE RULE OF LAW

Civil forfeiture without a criminal conviction is a powerful legal instrument. It also raises important constitutional and human rights questions.

The absence of a criminal conviction cannot mean the absence of evidence, judicial oversight, adversarial proceedings, proportionality, or effective remedies.

Protecting bona fide third parties is especially important when assets are held through companies, family members, or complex ownership structures.

The provisions on imprescriptibility, the relationship between civil forfeiture and criminal acquittals, and the evidentiary requirements for linking property to unlawful activity – including the applicable standard of proof – will all warrant close judicial attention.

An effective asset recovery system must be able to strip criminal organizations of their illicit wealth while safeguarding fundamental rights and the integrity of judicial proceedings.

WHY THIS MATTERS

Organized crime is not merely a collection of offenders. It is an economic system. Its financial infrastructure sustains trafficking routes, corruption, money laundering, recruitment, logistics networks, and territorial expansion.

Arresting individual offenders is necessary, but it may not be enough to dismantle criminal enterprises whose financial structures remain intact.

These four federal lawsuits are an important test of Brazil’s new approach. For now, they are claims, not final forfeiture judgments, nor proof that BRL 190.3 million has already been recovered. Their ultimate significance will depend on the evidence presented, the courts’ decisions, the effectiveness of asset tracing, and the procedural safeguards applied.

The goal is not merely to prosecute organized crime, but to dismantle the economic foundations that allow it to survive and expand.

Organized crime thrives on profit. Fighting it effectively means following the money, recovering illicit assets, and ensuring that crime does not pay.

TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS?

These civil forfeiture actions, targeting approximately BRL 190 million linked to the PCC and the CV, are a significant step toward dismantling the financial infrastructure of transnational organized crime.

They are especially relevant in light of US efforts to designate these Brazilian criminal organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs). By pursuing illicit assets through judicial proceedings, Brazil shows that it has legal tools to disrupt organized crime without resorting to the controversial characterization of drug trafficking organizations as terrorist groups.

A US designation of both organizations could have far-reaching consequences, including expanded financial sanctions, criminal liability for providing material support, heightened scrutiny of cross-border transactions, and greater pressure for international law enforcement cooperation. It could also generate serious legal and diplomatic tensions, particularly over the distinction between organized crime and terrorism, national sovereignty, and the extraterritorial reach of US counterterrorism law.

Brazil’s new asset forfeiture framework offers an alternative: following the money, recovering criminal proceeds, and weakening these organizations economically, while preserving the conceptual and legal boundary between organized crime and terrorism.

#Brazil #AssetRecovery #CivilForfeiture #OrganizedCrime #MoneyLaundering #InternationalLaw