Art. 140. The guarantees of compensation for damage will also cover procedural expenses and pecuniary penalties, with preference being given to repairing the damage to the victim.
Scope of guarantees and preference for repairing the victim’s damage
Scope of the guarantees and preference for repairing the victim’s damage: The collected goods, once publicly sold, will serve to pay the procedural expenses and the pecuniary penalties applied. However, the preference for payment is for compensation for damages to the offended party. Once the victim has been compensated, the balance is used to pay court costs and pecuniary penalties.
Legitimacy for the collection of the fine and competent court
Legitimacy for charging the fine penalty: The STJ Precedent 521 states : “The legitimacy for the tax enforcement of a fine pending payment imposed in a conviction is exclusive to the Public Treasury Attorney’s Office . ”
Doctrine
Alice Saldanha Villar: New STJ Precedent 521 commented . “With the enactment of Law no. 9.268/96, which gave new wording to article 51 of the CPC, the procedure for executing the fine imposed in criminal conviction was modified. It was discussed whether the execution of the penalty of unpaid fine would continue to be carried out in the Criminal Execution Court, through the Public Ministry, or if it should be in the Public Treasury Court, through the Treasury Attorney. In other words: what would be the active legitimacy to promote the execution of the fine imposed as a result of criminal proceedings after the enactment of Law n. 9,268/96? Resolving this controversy, the STJ published Precedent 521 and established the understanding that the competence is exclusive to the Public Treasury. Our article is intended to clarify the grounds for this decision, as well as to answer the following questions: a) What is the procedure for executing this fine penalty? b) Will this execution be the responsibility of the National or State Treasury? c) Does the statute of limitations continue to be governed by the CP or will it become that of the CTN? d) Is it possible to extinguish the criminal execution process pending the payment of the fine?
Competent court for the execution of the fine: Once the conviction becomes final, the fine will be executed before the judge of the criminal execution and will be considered a value debt, applicable the rules related to the overdue debt of the Public Treasury, including with regard to interruptive causes and suspension of prescription ( article 51 of CP ).
Jurisprudence
Legitimacy of the Public Prosecutor’s Office to promote a measure that guarantees the payment of a criminal fine: The Public Prosecutor’s Office has the legitimacy to promote a security measure aimed at guaranteeing the payment of a fine imposed by a criminal conviction ( REsp 1.275.834-PR, Reporting Minister Ericson Maranho (Judge summoned from TJ-SP), judged on 3/17/2015, DJe 3/25/2015 – Newsletter 558 ).
Legitimacy of the MP to execute the fine in the execution court: The Public Prosecutor’s Office is the legitimate body to promote the execution of the fine penalty, before the Criminal Execution Court, observing the procedure described by articles 164 and following of the Penal Execution Law ( ADI 3,150, rel. to ac. min. Roberto Barroso, DJE of 8-6-2019 and AP 470 QO-twelfth, rel. min. Roberto Barroso, DJE of 8-6-2019 ).
Legitimacy of the Public Treasury to execute the fine in the face of inaction by the Public Prosecutor’s Office: If the holder of the criminal action, duly summoned, does not propose the execution of the fine within 90 (ninety) days, the Judge of the criminal execution will inform the body of the fact competent authority of the Public Treasury (Federal or State, as the case may be) for the respective collection in the Tax Execution Court itself, with observance of the rite of Law 6.830/1980 (ADI 3.150, rel. p/ o ac. min. Roberto Barroso, DJE of 8-6-2019 and AP 470 QO-twelfth, rel. min. Roberto Barroso, DJE of 8-6-2019 ).
