Brazil Investigates Alleged Insider Trading Tied to Trump Tariff News
Justice Alexandre de Moraes issued the order on Monday in response to a request from Brazil's attorney general based on local media reports of significant foreign exchange transactions shortly before and after the official tariffs announcement on July 9. The attorney general said the currency movements suggested 'possible use of privileged information by individuals or legal entities.'
The real began to weaken around 1:30pm ET on July 9, after President Donald Trump said Brazil hadn't been good to the US and warned tariffs were imminent. Three hours later, he followed up with a letter to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva announcing a 50% levy on Brazilian exports, causing the currency to decline further.
The insider trading allegations have also become part of an inquiry into whether Eduardo Bolsonaro, a son of the former conservative president, has used the threat of tariffs to pressure the court. Since moving to the US in March, Eduardo has been meeting US administration officials in Washington, trying to persuade them to impose sanctions on members of the Brazilian judiciary.
Moraes is overseeing all cases related to ex-President Jair Bolsonaro and his son at the top court. The position has put him in collision course with Trump, who has demanded Brazilian authorities drop charges against him over an alleged coup attempt.
Instead, Moraes on Friday ordered Bolsonaro to wear an ankle monitor and barred him from using social media, among other restrictions. On Monday, he issued a follow-up order clarifying that interviews by the former president may not be retransmitted on social media.
With assistance from Vinícius Andrade and Augusto Decker.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
6 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court allows Kerala to withdraw plea against Governor, Centre resists
The Supreme Court on Friday (July 25, 2025) allowed the State of Kerala to withdraw two petitions filed against its State Governor's delay in clearing crucial Bills despite stiff resistance from the Centre. Appearing before a Bench headed by Justice P.S. Narasimha, Attorney General R. Venkataramani said the State was withdrawing on the strength of an April 8 judgment in an identical case concerning the Tamil Nadu Governor. 'This is not just a simple withdrawal,' Mr. Venkataramani addressed the court. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asked the court to tag the Kerala petitions against its Governor with a Presidential Reference pending before a Constitution Bench. The April 8 judgment has prescribed a maximum three-month deadline for both the President and State Governors to act on State Bills sent to them for approval or reserved for consideration under Articles 200 and 201, respectively, of the Constitution. In May, the President had issued a reference under the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (Article 143 of the Constitution), questioning the court's inherent powers under Article 142 to 'impose' timelines and prescribe the manner of conduct of Governors and the President while dealing with State Bills. 'How can a withdrawal of a petition be tagged with a Presidential Reference before a Constitution Bench?' Senior advocate K.K. Venugopal reacted. The senior lawyer said the State was entitled to withdraw its case. 'But there is a string attached to the April 8 judgment,' Mr. Venkataramani insisted. 'No strings attached... The string is cut,' Mr. Venugopal said. In an earlier hearing on July 14, Mr. Venugopal had submitted that the April judgment had made the State's petitions infructuous. The law officers had countered the apex court ought to wait for the Constitution Bench's respomses to questioms raised in the Presidential Reference. However, Justice Narasimha had himself remarked that it would be 'very, very difficult' for the apex court to stop Kerala from withdrawing its petitions.
Hindustan Times
32 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
HC junks petitions challenging Maharashtra's farm procurement scheme, imposes ₹1 lakh cost
Mumbai, The Bombay High Court has dismissed petitions challenging a Maharashtra Government Resolution on the procurement and supply of certain agricultural items, terming them 'totally baseless'. HC junks petitions challenging Maharashtra's farm procurement scheme, imposes ₹ 1 lakh cost Finding no merit in the Public Interest Litigation and a writ petition filed against GR of March 12, 2024, the court also imposed a cost of one lakh on the petitioners. The pleas were dismissed by a division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne on July 22. As per the detailed order, made available on Friday, the bench ruled that the challenge to the government's decision was 'totally baseless and deserves rejection'. The court said it did not find any error in the GR concerning the procurement of five items under a special action plan for productivity enhancement and value chain development of cotton, soybean and other oilseeds. 'Thus, no interference was warranted in the tender process implemented for procurement of the said items,' it said. The March 12, 2024, GR details the procurement and supply of five items – battery-operated sprayers, nano urea, nano D, metaldehyde pesticide, and cotton storage bags – to farmers. 'The said petition is filed by an association of manufacturers of sprayers, who have no locus standi to challenge implementation of special action plan by the state government,' the bench said. The court said that to protect their private interest, manufacturers and traders cannot be permitted to challenge the broader scheme to facilitate the productivity enhancement of the listed crop. The petitioners had contended that the five items were removed from an earlier GR dated December 5, 2016, which allowed farm subsidies through the Direct Benefit Transfer scheme and were included in the new GR, which provides for their procurement through state agencies. The state agencies, including Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited and Maharashtra State Powerloom Corporation Limited, procured these items at 'exorbitant' rates, claimed the PIL. Senior advocate, Nikhil Sakhardande, who represented the petitioners, told the court that the DBT scheme was more beneficial to farmers, allowing them to purchase items at cheaper rates from local traders. The new system favoured large contractors, he argued. Appearing for the state government, senior advocate V R Dhond contended that the earlier GR operated under different objectives. He stated that the March 2024 GR was aimed at enhancing productivity and value chain development of cotton, soybean and other oilseed crops, which he called a broader programme not limited to just product procurement. The HC accepted the state's arguments and said the two GRs operate in 'completely different and independent spheres' with distinct objectives. The petitioners had 'erroneously mixed up the two GRs which have no nexus with each other', it held. Further, the bench held that these 'baseless' petitions created hurdles in the effective implementation of the plan, aimed at giving impetus to the cultivation of specified crops and benefiting farmers. 'For this reason also, while dismissing the petitions, we are inclined to impose costs on the petitioners,' the court said. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Time of India
34 minutes ago
- Time of India
‘Lost his mental balance' jibe: DK Shivakumar attacks Pramod Sawant over Mahadayi project; Goa CM hits back, says it reflects 'Congress culture'
NEW DELHI: Goa chief minister Pramod Sawant has hit back at Karnataka deputy chief minister DK Shivakumar, saying his remarks reflect 'Congress culture', after Shivakumar accused him of having 'lost his mental balance' over the long-running Mahadayi river dispute. Shivakumar's comments came after Sawant told the Goa assembly earlier this week that his government would move the Supreme Court against Karnataka for continuing work on the Kalasa-Banduri project, despite the matter being under judicial consideration. On Friday, speaking to reporters in Panaji, Sawant said, 'We are pursuing our demand to save Mhadei from being diverted. Shivakumar's statements reflect the Congress culture. When someone is frustrated, they speak like this.' You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru Sawant also accused Karnataka Congress leaders of competing 'to see how low they can stoop'. The Kalasa-Banduri project seeks to divert water from the Mahadayi river, known as Mhadei in Goa and Mandovi in its downstream flow, to supply drinking water to parts of northern Karnataka, including Dharwad and Belagavi. Goa has consistently opposed the diversion, citing environmental concerns and its impact on the state's biodiversity. The river is a key source of water and one of the two major rivers in the state. In 2018, the Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal allocated 13.42 tmcft of water to Karnataka, 1.33 tmcft to Maharashtra, and 24 tmcft to Goa. The award was notified by the Centre in 2020. The dispute continues to be a politically sensitive issue in both states.
