Banco do Brasil ready to handle 'complex' issues amid debate over US sanctions
The statement followed a Reuters query about the U.S. Magnitsky Act, which President Donald Trump used last month to sanction Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, accusing him of authorizing arbitrary arrests and curbing freedom of speech.
Moraes oversees the case of far-right former President Jair Bolsonaro, a Trump ally, who is charged with plotting a coup after losing the 2022 election to leftist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
Justice Flavio Dino, ruling in a separate case on Monday without mentioning the sanctions on Moraes, suspended local enforcement of foreign judicial decisions, laws, and executive orders that lack approval from Brazil's sovereign bodies.
The ruling sparked intense debate among Brazilian banks already grappling with how to comply with the Magnitsky Act, which freezes assets under its jurisdiction and bars American firms from dealing with sanctioned individuals.
Given the global reach of the U.S. financial system, foreign banks often restrict a wider range of transactions to avoid secondary sanctions.
The dilemma between following a Brazilian Supreme Court order or U.S. sanctions weighed on shares of top Brazilian lenders, all of which fell on Tuesday.
State-controlled Banco do Brasil led the losses, trading down 4% by midday, while private lenders Bradesco (BBDC3.SA), opens new tab, Itau , Santander Brasil and BTG Pactual all dropped more than 3%.
Banco do Brasil said in its statement it operates "in full compliance with Brazilian law, the regulations of more than 20 countries where it is present, and international standards governing the financial system."
"The bank always closely monitors such matters and relies on specialized legal advice to ensure its practices align with the highest standards of governance, integrity and financial security," it added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
17 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Judge denies justice department request to unseal Epstein grand jury transcripts
The ruling on Wednesday by Judge Richard Berman in Manhattan came after the judge presiding over the case against British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's former girlfriend, also turned down the government's request. Maxwell is serving a 20-year prison sentence after her conviction on sex trafficking charges for helping Epstein sexually abuse girls and young women. Epstein died in jail awaiting trial. A US justice department spokesperson declined to comment. Judge Berman said the information contained in the Epstein grand jury transcripts 'pales in comparison to the Epstein investigative information and materials in the hands of the Department of Justice.' According to his ruling, no victims gave evidence before the Epstein grand jury. The only witness, the judge wrote, was an FBI agent 'who had no direct knowledge of the facts of the case and whose testimony was mostly hearsay'. The agent gave evidence over two days, on June 18 and July 2 2019. The rest of the grand jury presentation consisted of a PowerPoint slideshow shown during the June 18 session and a call log shown during the July 2 session, which ended with grand jurors voting to indict Epstein. Both of those will also remain sealed, Judge Berman ruled. Maxwell's case has been the subject of heightened public focus since an outcry over the justice department's statement last month saying that it would not be releasing any additional documents from the Epstein sex trafficking investigation. The decision infuriated online sleuths, conspiracy theorists and elements of US President Donald Trump's base who had hoped to see proof of a government cover-up. Since then, Trump administration officials have tried to cast themselves as promoting transparency in the case, including by requesting from courts the unsealing of grand jury transcripts. 'The government is the logical party to make comprehensive disclosure to the public of the Epstein file,' Judge Berman wrote in an apparent reference to the justice department's refusal to release additional records on its own while simultaneously moving to unseal grand jury transcripts. 'By comparison,' he added, 'the instant grand jury motion appears to be a 'diversion' from the breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the government's possession. The grand jury testimony is merely a hearsay snippet of Jeffrey Epstein's alleged conduct.' Meanwhile, Maxwell was interviewed at a Florida courthouse weeks ago by US deputy attorney general Todd Blanche, and the house oversight committee had also said that it wanted to speak with Maxwell. Her lawyers said they would be open to an interview but only if the panel were to ensure immunity from prosecution. In a letter Maxwell's lawyers, representative James Comer, the committee chairman, wrote that the committee was willing to delay the deposition until after the resolution of Maxwell's appeal to the Supreme Court. That appeal is expected to be resolved in late September. Mr Comer wrote that while Maxwell's testimony was 'vital' to the Republican-led investigation into Epstein, the committee would not provide immunity or any questions in advance of her testimony, as was requested by her team.
South Wales Guardian
17 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Judge denies justice department request to unseal Epstein grand jury transcripts
The ruling on Wednesday by Judge Richard Berman in Manhattan came after the judge presiding over the case against British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's former girlfriend, also turned down the government's request. Maxwell is serving a 20-year prison sentence after her conviction on sex trafficking charges for helping Epstein sexually abuse girls and young women. Epstein died in jail awaiting trial. A US justice department spokesperson declined to comment. Judge Berman said the information contained in the Epstein grand jury transcripts 'pales in comparison to the Epstein investigative information and materials in the hands of the Department of Justice.' According to his ruling, no victims gave evidence before the Epstein grand jury. The only witness, the judge wrote, was an FBI agent 'who had no direct knowledge of the facts of the case and whose testimony was mostly hearsay'. The agent gave evidence over two days, on June 18 and July 2 2019. The rest of the grand jury presentation consisted of a PowerPoint slideshow shown during the June 18 session and a call log shown during the July 2 session, which ended with grand jurors voting to indict Epstein. Both of those will also remain sealed, Judge Berman ruled. Maxwell's case has been the subject of heightened public focus since an outcry over the justice department's statement last month saying that it would not be releasing any additional documents from the Epstein sex trafficking investigation. The decision infuriated online sleuths, conspiracy theorists and elements of US President Donald Trump's base who had hoped to see proof of a government cover-up. Since then, Trump administration officials have tried to cast themselves as promoting transparency in the case, including by requesting from courts the unsealing of grand jury transcripts. 'The government is the logical party to make comprehensive disclosure to the public of the Epstein file,' Judge Berman wrote in an apparent reference to the justice department's refusal to release additional records on its own while simultaneously moving to unseal grand jury transcripts. 'By comparison,' he added, 'the instant grand jury motion appears to be a 'diversion' from the breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the government's possession. The grand jury testimony is merely a hearsay snippet of Jeffrey Epstein's alleged conduct.' Meanwhile, Maxwell was interviewed at a Florida courthouse weeks ago by US deputy attorney general Todd Blanche, and the house oversight committee had also said that it wanted to speak with Maxwell. Her lawyers said they would be open to an interview but only if the panel were to ensure immunity from prosecution. In a letter Maxwell's lawyers, representative James Comer, the committee chairman, wrote that the committee was willing to delay the deposition until after the resolution of Maxwell's appeal to the Supreme Court. That appeal is expected to be resolved in late September. Mr Comer wrote that while Maxwell's testimony was 'vital' to the Republican-led investigation into Epstein, the committee would not provide immunity or any questions in advance of her testimony, as was requested by her team.
The Guardian
17 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump administration to expand review of Smithsonian museums to ‘get Woke out'
Amid the Donald Trump administration's heavy-handed review of Smithsonian museums, the Guardian has seen a document compiled by the White House that argues the widely visited cultural institutions have overly negative portrayals of US history, from a Benjamin Franklin exhibit that links his scientific achievements to his ownership of enslaved people and a film about George Floyd's murder that it says mischaracterizes the police. The document, based on public submissions shared with the administration, shows that seven museums have so far been flagged for review: the National Museum of American History, National Museum of the American Latino, National Museum of Natural History, National Museum of African Art, National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian American Art Museum and National Museum of Asian Art. 'President Trump will explore all options and avenues to get the Woke out of the Smithsonian and hold them accountable,' a White House official said. 'Until we get info from the Smithsonian in response to our letter, we can't verify the numbers of artifacts that have been removed because the Smithsonian has removed them on their own.' Trump announced the initiative on Truth Social earlier this week, writing: 'The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been.' The administration argues exhibits at these museums focus excessively on oppression rather than American achievements. At the National Museum of American History, the document flagged the ¡Presente! Latino history exhibition for allegedly promoting an 'anti-American agenda' by examining colonization effects and depicting the US as stealing territory from Mexico in 1848. Examples from the document also shames the museum's Benjamin Franklin exhibit for linking his scientific achievements to his ownership of enslaved people, and the Star-Spangled Banner display for focusing on American historical failures and controversies rather than celebrating national achievements. The National Portrait Gallery is being singled out for focusing on how the Chinese Exclusion Act and other racist immigration laws contradicted the Statue of Liberty's welcoming message. The African art museum is targeted over the George Floyd film. And the Asian art museum is flagged for exhibitions for claiming to impose western gender ideology on traditional cultures. Last week, the White House budget director, Russ Vought, sent letters to eight museums demanding information about exhibits within 30 days and instructing officials to implement 'content corrections' including replacing 'divisive' language. The review follows similar Trump administration pressure on universities, which resulted in institutions paying hundreds of millions to the government and walking back diversity initiatives. Separately, the Smithsonian has already made changes to exhibits referencing Trump, removing all mention of his impeachments from a presidential power display at the American history museum in July, leaving only generic references to three presidents facing potential removal from office. The Smithsonian Institution did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
