Connect with us

News

Brazil’s supreme court orders probe of anti-corruption group

Published

on

Brazil’s supreme court orders probe of anti-corruption group

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

A judge on Brazil’s supreme court has ordered an investigation into Transparency International, days after the Berlin-based corruption watchdog criticised the country’s faltering anti-graft efforts and resurging sense of impunity.

The move is the latest by Justice Dias Toffoli, who in recent months has sought to unwind the legacy of Brazil’s long-running Lava Jato, or Car Wash, anti-corruption investigation, a seven-year-long operation that exposed a culture of bribery.

Last week, Toffoli — a former lawyer for the ruling Workers’ party — suspended a multimillion-dollar fine imposed on construction group Novonor, formerly known as Odebrecht, for its role in the bribery scandal.

Advertisement

Starting in 2014, the Car Wash probe revealed a vast kickbacks-for-contracts scheme involving executives at state-controlled energy group Petrobras, a cartel of construction companies and dozens of lawmakers from across the political spectrum.

The US Treasury department called it the largest foreign bribery case in history. Billions of dollars were eventually recovered and sentences totalling more than 2,200 years were handed down to 165 prominent Brazilians, although only a fraction of those years were served.

Some outcomes from the investigation, however, have been unwound since 2019 following revelations that the presiding judge in the investigation, Sergio Moro, had colluded with prosecutors.

The supreme court also judged that Moro was biased in his 2017 prosecution of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the leftwing leader who last year returned to the presidency for a third term.

In addition to the suspension of the Novonor fine, Toffoli last year nullified vast amounts of evidence obtained from the construction company as part of plea deals struck with prosecutors during the Car Wash probe.

Advertisement

He also suspended a $2bn fine imposed on the holding company of the two brothers who control meatpacking giant JBS. They had also signed a leniency deal under the anti-graft investigation.

The moves raised concerns among anti-corruption campaigners, including Transparency International, which dropped Brazil by 10 positions in its annual Corruption Perceptions index. The Latin American nation was ranked 104 out of 180 countries.

In its report last week, the watchdog highlighted the actions of Toffoli as well as the appointment last year of Cristiano Zanin — Lula’s personal lawyer during the Car Wash investigation — to the supreme court.

Campaigners have also criticised Lula’s recent appointment of Ricardo Lewandowski as justice minister. While previously serving on the supreme court, Lewandowski was staunchly opposed to the Car Wash operation and had terminated three criminal cases facing the leftwing leader.

“Thanks to Toffoli’s decisions, Brazil has become a cemetery for evidence of crimes that generated misery, violence and human suffering in more than a dozen countries in Latin America and Africa,” the non-profit group said. “The country is increasingly becoming, in the eyes of the world, an example of corruption and impunity.”

Advertisement

Toffoli on Monday ordered an investigation of Transparency International over accusations that it misappropriated public resources during the Car Wash probe.

The judge highlighted that the group was foreign and said any funds received for its anti-corruption work should have been allocated to the national treasury.

Transparency denied any wrongdoing, saying “hostile reactions to Transparency International’s anti-corruption work are increasingly serious and common in many parts of the world”.

It added: “Attacks on critical voices in society, which denounce the corruption and impunity of powerful people, cannot be normalised.”

Eduardo Ribeiro, president of the rightwing Novo party, also criticised the move. “Not satisfied with suspending the billion-dollar fines of companies that confessed their crimes, Toffoli has now ordered an investigation of Transparency International, precisely the NGO that has been warning about these absurd decisions,” he said. “Is this a dictatorship or not?”

Advertisement

News

“It’s blood money”: Family of exonerated man in Texas yogurt shop murders speaks out after settlement

Published

on

“It’s blood money”: Family of exonerated man in Texas yogurt shop murders speaks out after settlement

The widow and the daughter of Maurice Pierce, one of the four men wrongfully accused in the 1991 Texas yogurt shop murders, have confirmed they signed a multimillion-dollar settlement with the city of Austin.

Kimberli and Marisa Pierce spoke with correspondent Erin Moriarty in a new episode of the podcast “48 Hours: Case by Case.” Moriarty has reported on the yogurt shop murders for over 30 years. 

Maurice Pierce’s widow Kimberli made clear that their priority has never been financial compensation. “It’s blood money for us. He died for this money,” Kimberli Pierce said. “It’s about the reform and the changes that need to happen, not only in Austin, but apparently across the country.”

They also went into great detail about what they believe happened when Maurice Pierce was shot and killed by police in 2010. 

Advertisement

Maurice Pierce was one of four men, along with Michael Scott, Robert Springsteen and Forrest Welborn, who were wrongfully accused in the murders of four teenage girls in Austin on Dec. 6, 1991. Eliza Thomas, Amy Ayers, and sisters Jennifer and Sarah Harbison were tied up, shot and left inside the yogurt shop as it was set ablaze. 

The four men were exonerated in February after investigators linked another man, Robert Eugene Brashers, to the killings. The city of Austin subsequently offered a $35 million settlement. Because Maurice Pierce died in 2010, his share of $10 million will go to Kimberli and Marisa Pierce.

Eight days after the killings, 16-year-old Maurice Pierce was arrested at a mall, carrying a .22, the same caliber handgun connected to the crime. Kimberli Pierce said police told Maurice Pierce that his gun was the murder weapon. He responded by mentioning his friend Forrest Welborn. Maurice Pierce was then wired up and sent to speak with Welborn, but investigators ultimately determined that Welborn and the others knew nothing about the murders, and no charges were filed at that time.

Marisa Pierce has said there was no evidence when her father was questioned, “only a detective and a narrative, a narrative so completely false. It feels evil.”

From left, Maurice Pierce, Forrest Welborn, Michael Scott and Robert Springsteen were exonerated in February 2026 after investigators linked another man, Robert Eugene Brashers, to the December 1991 killings of four teenage girls in an Austin, Texas, yogurt shop. 

Advertisement

CBS News/AP


Nearly eight years later, in 1999, all four men were arrested after Scott and Springsteen confessed to the murders. They later recanted, saying they had been coerced. Springsteen and Scott were tried and convicted, but later those convictions were overturned on constitutional grounds. A subsequent DNA test excluded all four men. Maurice Pierce was never convicted but spent three years in jail before his release in 2003. 

Kimberli Pierce said her husband came home a hardened man. She believes police continued to harass Maurice and their family after his release. In 2010, Maurice Pierce was stopped for a routine traffic stop, fled on foot, and was shot and killed by an Austin police officer who said Pierce had stabbed him with a knife. 

Marisa and Kimberli Pierce told “48 Hours” that they intend to review the circumstances surrounding the night of Maurice Pierce’s death. Marisa Pierce revealed in new, emotional detail that she was on the phone with her father at the time. She believes he panicked and was only trying to get away, not to hurt anyone. She described her father’s last breaths: “And in those last moments, he had just said I’m sorry, I don’t think you’re gonna see me again, and I love you.” 

Advertisement

“48 Hours” reached out to the Austin Police Department about the Pierces’ allegations of harassment and their questions about Maurice Pierce’s death in 2010. The police department said they had no additional comment.

For the Pierce family, the settlement is a starting point, not an end point. They have put forward seven proposed reforms they hope the city of Austin will approve, including appointing a child advocate whenever a minor is questioned, prohibiting deceptive interrogation tactics, educating juveniles about their rights and establishing accountability measures to address tunnel vision in police investigations.

In a statement shared with “48 Hours,” the Pierces wrote: “Real justice is not only about acknowledging harm after the fact but about creating safeguards that prevent future families from enduring the same pain.”  

Continue Reading

News

The Maine Town That Actually Wants a Data Center

Published

on

This year, Maine nearly became the first state to pass a statewide moratorium on new data centers. But before the law could take effect, supporters of an A.I. data center project in the small town of Jay rallied to fight the ban — and won. So why do residents there want one? We traveled to Jay to find out.

Continue Reading

News

The Supreme Court says the U.S. can turn away asylum seekers at the border

Published

on

The Supreme Court says the U.S. can turn away asylum seekers at the border

The U.S. Supreme Court

Drew Angerer/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Drew Angerer/AFP via Getty Images

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed the Trump administration a tool that could make it far more difficult for asylum seekers to enter the United States.

Asylum is a form of legal protection available to people fleeing persecution in their home countries if they meet certain criteria. Under U.S. law, an asylum seeker who “arrives in” the U.S. is entitled to apply for asylum and generally cannot be removed from the country until their asylum application is processed. 

By a 6-3 vote, the high court ruled that federal law allows the government to stop asylum seekers from physically setting foot in the country, effectively keeping them from applying for asylum. 

Advertisement

The Obama administration was the first to try stemming the flow of asylum seekers that way. But the lower courts blocked the policy on grounds that it violated federal law by denying asylum to people who otherwise would have qualified for it, had they been permitted to literally put one foot over the border.

The Trump administration, however, sought to revive the policy, contending that the lower court’s ruling “deprives the Executive Branch of a critical tool for addressing border surges and preventing overcrowding at ports of entry.” And on Thursday, the Supreme Court agreed.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito ruled that because asylum seekers are not in the U.S. when they are turned away at the border, they did not “arrive in” the country. Therefore, he continued, the legal protections for asylum seekers have not kicked in.

Writing for the liberal dissenters, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that Border Patrol agents speak with all immigrants at legal entry points and speaking with an agent is effectively the first step in “arriving in” the U.S.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending