Judge sees embezzlement signs, clears Andrés and Gavioli of others

In partnership with

Central do Timão

·12 December 2025

Judge sees embezzlement signs, clears Andrés and Gavioli of others

By Daniel Keppler and Larissa Beppler | Central do Timão Editorial Team

The complaint by the São Paulo Public Prosecutor's Office (MP-SP) against former Corinthians president Andrés Sanchez and former financial manager Roberto Gavioli has finally received a judicial decision. On the afternoon of Thursday (11), Judge Marcia Mayumi Okoda recorded her notes on the charges in the case files, accepting part of the arguments presented by prosecutor Cássio Conserino and rejecting another part.

The Central do Timão had access to the decision, dated December 9 (two days before its publication in the case files, therefore) and containing 14 pages. In it, the magistrate treats the accused duo as defendants and recalls that the facts described in the MP-SP's complaint occurred between August 2018 and February 2021, much of Andrés' second term at the helm of Corinthians, with Gavioli as his subordinate.

OneFootball Videos

Andrés Sanchéz and Roberto Gavioli. Photo: Corinthians Agency

The text also summarized the charges made. Against Andrés, the MP-SP attributed the crimes of embezzlement, for using the club's corporate card for personal expenses; concealment and disguise of illicitly obtained funds, totaling over R$ 480,000; forgery of invoices, citing expenses at establishments such as HStern jewelry, Einstein Hospital, Brooksfield store, and Sondas Supermarket; and also tax crimes.

Gavioli, in turn, was accused of passive participation in criminal offenses and complicity in money laundering. The accusation pointed out that, in his role in Corinthians' finance department, the former manager failed to check corporate card invoices, did not require proof of expenses, did not report irregularities to internal control bodies, and recorded personal expenses as legitimate.

Agreements and disagreements

The magistrate, however, disagreed with part of the MP-SP's arguments. Regarding the money laundering charge, she found no "just cause," justifying that, technically, such a crime requires not only the appropriation of illicitly obtained assets but also their concealment or disguise, aiming to reintegrate the funds into the formal economy. It would also be necessary, according to her, to have the intent to mask the illicit origin of the assets.

According to the decision, the conduct described in the complaint would actually constitute only spending and consumption of the appropriated funds, without elements of concealment or disguise by Andrés – which, in practice, would only allow for the classification of embezzlement. This would include the expenses at the previously mentioned establishments, classified only as "enjoyment of the criminal product."

Another point rejected was the tax crime charges. For this, the judge applied consolidated jurisprudence from the Supreme Federal Court (STF), according to which there is no crime against the tax order before the definitive assessment of the tax, an act that only occurs after the conclusion of the administrative tax process and the exhaustion of all taxpayer appeals. Before that, there is no certainty about the existence of the due tax or the amount of the loss, which is why the crime cannot be recognized.

Finally, the embezzlement charge was accepted. The judge recognized that the complaint well described the conduct, with just cause for classification. However, the rejection of the other crimes made her court incompetent to advance on the merits, since the 2nd Court of Tax Crimes, Criminal Organization, and Money Laundering of the Capital, where the magistrate is stationed, does not have jurisdiction to judge embezzlement crimes.

Precautionary measures

Even so, the decision included urgent measures, whose non-assessment could cause damage to the process. The judge granted, for example, the seizure and blocking of funds deposited in the bank accounts of Andrés and Gavioli, up to the limit of R$ 480,169.60 for each, corresponding to the total of the undue expenditure. The aim is to ensure the repair of the damage caused to Corinthians and the payment of pecuniary penalties, fines, and costs.

The decision also included alternative measures to imprisonment for the duo, such as the prohibition of contact with witnesses and Corinthians officials, including president Osmar Stabile, listed as a witness in the action. The justification used was that both accused exercised political influence within the club, which could jeopardize witness testimony, characterizing interference in the process. It also prohibited both from leaving Brazil without judicial authorization, citing the risk of flight.

Some measures, however, were denied, such as the search and seizure request, considered unnecessary given the context; the issuance of a letter to Einstein Hospital, as the complaint regarding the establishment was rejected; and not acknowledging a petition presented by Andrés, due to lack of legal provision. The decision finally determined that the other requests be assessed by the competent court.

MP-SP's reaction

The magistrate's decision prompted an immediate reaction from the prosecutor responsible for the complaint. In a statement presented two hours after the document's publication in the case files, Conserino vehemently contested the judge's allegations, pointing out the two-day difference between the decision's production and its actual publication in the case files. The prosecutor notes that this publication occurred hours after the MP-SP filed a motion for suspicion against the magistrate, which she had not addressed.

The prosecution suspects that the judge is acting with bias in the process. Although the petition does not detail these reasons, an investigation published by the UOL portal presented them: an alleged professional relationship between the magistrate and Andrés' lawyer at FAAP; her role in the Fan Court; the almost two-month delay in analyzing the complaint, considered excessive by the MP-SP; and the inclusion, on the eve of the decision, of a criminal record certificate only for Andrés in the case files.

Conserino's petition also argues that the judge, when pointed out as suspect, should have forwarded the case files to the higher court, the São Paulo Court of Justice (TJ-SP), for analysis and deliberation. It also maintains that Thursday's decision would be null, as if the TJ-SP accepts the pointed suspicion, the magistrate's decisions would also be annulled.

However, in consultation with lawyers specializing in Criminal Law, the Central do Timão found that the published decision has effects while the suspicion is not judged, needing to be complied with by both Andrés and Gavioli. Thus, the seizure and blocking of funds will have to be executed against both, and the prohibition of leaving the country without authorization is also in effect.

The petition also reiterated the suspicion allegation, labeled "very clear" by the prosecutor, requesting that the judge forward the case files either to a substitute, if she recognizes the alleged impediment to judging the case, or then send the process to the TJ-SP for the higher court to judge the MP-SP's arguments. It finally requested that all precautionary measures be analyzed, not just part of them.

What's next?

In light of the MP-SP's response to the judge's decision, the process now awaits a new statement from the magistrate, who must respond to the suspicion accusation. If she accepts the petition's arguments, she will have to declare herself unable to remain in charge of the case. Her acts would be annulled, and the process would be reassigned to another judge, who would restart the analysis from the complaint offered.

However, if she does not recognize the suspicion, it will be up to the TJ-SP to analyze the issue and decide if the MP-SP's arguments are sufficient to indicate that the magistrate could not judge the case. While none of these scenarios materialize, the decisions already made by the judge remain in effect.

See more: