Brazil's Supreme Federal Court (STF) has approved a stricter reading of parts of the country's Administrative Improbity Law, the statute used to punish public officials for misconduct involving public money, illicit enrichment or serious violations of public administration rules.
The justices reviewed provisions changed by Congress in 2021 through Law 14.230. The judgment, held on June 24, 2026, was not completed, and the remaining points will return to the plenary on a date still to be set.
What Changed
The STF considered two direct actions of unconstitutionality, ADIs 7.156 and 7.236. The cases are being reported by Justices André Mendonça and Alexandre de Moraes, whose positions converged on parts of the final wording approved so far.
One central result is that, as a rule, a public official convicted of improbity must lose all public offices held at the time of conviction. The judge may preserve specific posts only in exceptional cases, with a specific justification based on the facts and the seriousness of the violation.
The court also rejected a provision that allowed defendants punished with loss of political rights to count, retroactively, the time between a conviction by a panel of judges and the final exhaustion of appeals. According to Poder360, Moraes said maintaining that rule could create “impunity” for political agents.
Recovering Public Money
The justices also made it easier for courts to freeze assets in improbity cases. According to Congresso em Foco, the STF invalidated requirements that made asset freezing depend on proof of immediate risk of damage or risk that a future judgment could not be enforced.
Under the decision, asset freezes may be ordered when there are strong indications of irregularity, even without a separate showing of urgency. The measure may cover both compensation for damage to public coffers and amounts allegedly obtained through illicit enrichment.
The court also struck down a requirement that the value of administrative damage first be confirmed by an audit court before restitution could be ordered. The justices understood that the rule interfered with the Public Prosecutor's Office, which has authority to bring improbity actions.
Liability and Evidence
The STF preserved the possibility of joint liability when restitution to the treasury is required in corruption cases. That means, for example, business partners may be ordered together to return assets or money owed to the state, while individual penalties still have to be assessed separately for each defendant.
The sources describe the evidence rule in different terms. Poder360 reported that the court validated a restricted mechanism allowing judges to require investigated officials to present evidence about the regularity of their acts. Congresso em Foco reported that the STF maintained the ban on transferring the burden of proof to the defendant, while clarifying that investigated parties must comply with judicial orders to provide documents and information needed for the case.
The practical distinction is that the court did not endorse a general presumption of guilt against defendants. It did, however, leave room for judges to demand specific documents or information when those materials are necessary to examine alleged misconduct.
Parties and Civil Law
The STF also rejected the view that improbity actions lack a civil character. The court said Brazil's Constitution itself treats actions to investigate administrative improbity as civil in nature.
For political parties, the court ruled that liability under Brazil's Political Parties Law does not exclude the application of the Administrative Improbity Law. Both statutes may apply at the same time in cases involving illicit enrichment, diversion or misuse of public funds.
The judgment leaves a stricter framework than the one Congress approved in 2021, especially on asset freezes, loss of office and recovery of public money. But because the STF has not finished reviewing all disputed provisions, the final reach of the ruling remains open.