​ What I have always sought is a serious, impartial, and technical investigation into match-fixing in the Brazilian Championship. And at every opportunity, I requested Brazilian authorities to seal the information I produced, as it involves the names of third parties.

​​

I deeply regret that the report issued by Mr. Mauro Marcelo de Lima e Silva has purposely disclosed the names of those potentially involved and made public the contents of the documentation under analysis in the Investigation, which are sensitive data and confidential information.

 

The elements of match manipulation were provided by Good Game!, an independent expert which is greatly relied upon by leading European governing bodies, sports federations (such as Union of European Football Associations – UEFA), betting companies, and governments. 

​

I have always been cautioned to not make specific allegations against any club, player, or match official, as I followed the protocol of the STJD to request an investigation. However, the auditor Mr. Mauro Marcelo de Lima e Silva, as early as 03.14.2024, long before evaluating the material I collected, made it clear that I should be punished for seeking such an investigation.

​

The report issued by Mr. Mauro Marcelo de Lima e Silva lacks the necessary independence and impartiality. The document is biased and contains a level of subjectivity never seen in any act carried out by Brazilian authorities, who are also currently examining the issue.

 

 

What I have presented to the Sports Investigation is no different from what I have already submitted to the CPI on Match-Fixing and Sports Betting (“CPI”), and to the Public Prosecutor's Office, which is the competent authority for investigating possible crimes and frauds in Brazilian football. The investigations are ongoing and under detailed analysis by both the CPI and the Public Prosecutor Office, given the amount of documents produced.

 

To date, I have never been allowed to make a presentation of the collected material with the experts’ collaboration. In fact, a week ago, I received a list of thirty-five (35) questions from Mr. Mauro Marcelo de Lima e Silva and was asked to respond. Despite the absurdity of the questions, which made it clear that I had become his target, I was happy that the dialogue had finally started. My legal counsel asked for a couple of days to complete our responses, but Mr. Mauro Marcelo denied the request and the report of the “investigation” was completed and filed as “final”.

​

In view of such misleading investigation and an unfounded report, several important facts must be noted and reinforced:

 

• I have never made any allegation against a specific club, player or a referee. My only action was to submit documents, in particular from a credible expert which is respected by governing bodies and criminal courts in several jurisdictions, to competent authorities, and request that such documentation be investigated by the STJD, by the Senate, and by criminal prosecutors.

• Contrary to what was stated by the report, Mr. Mauro Marcelo has not conducted an independent investigation into the possibility of match manipulation in Serie A Brasileirão, based on the elements that I provided. It is clear that the STJD auditor has made no effort to interview myself, as complainant, or Good Game!, as the author of the reports which stand as evidence. It cannot be possible to argue that an investigation has commenced if there no record of a single interview with the complainant and other indispensable witnesses.

• I have made multiple requests to present such documents that I collected over time to the STJD, on a confidential basis. However, all of my requests have been ignored.

• I have also requested that the expert author of the reports that I produced be invited to present their methodology and conclusions to the STJD, including corroborating video, and this request has also been ignored.

• Demand for Confidential Protections Ignored: I repeatedly demanded that all submissions of evidence only occur with an extreme adherence to secrecy and confidentiality protocols. I challenged the STJD to assure confidentiality before I would agree to submit documents with the names and identities of implicated parties.

  • As I first submitted evidence, in December 2023, I redacted names and uniform numbers of players to be sure that the rights of implicated individuals were protected.

  • It is well-established, and publicly known, that I was threatened with suspension for not submitting evidence to the STJD, even without any assurance from the STJD of confidentiality to protect the implicated parties.

  • On 04.18.2024, leading members of the STJD conceded during meetings that the STJD did not have at that time the necessary tools to protect the confidentiality of the implicated parties. It was then agreed that I should not submit the evidence, until assurance that confidentiality could be protected.

  • On 06.04.2024, Mr. Mauro Marcelo required me to submit evidence, which included confidential documents, and I complied.

  • Ultimately, the STJD did not establish confidential protocols for the submission and evaluation of evidence. As a consequence, the identities of implicated parties were publicly disclosed, as a result of the decisions from the STJD auditor Mr. Mauro Marcelo.

  • Ironically, that same auditor has now suggested that I be punished for accusations that I did not make, against parties that I did not name, other than through a confidential request to investigate credible and court admissible evidence from an established expert.

• Established Expert as Source of Evidence: The reports provided in my confidential submissions have been issued by leading experts in the emerging field of match manipulation detection. They have been relied upon by the leading football governing organization in Europe, and by European judicial authorities and police, in the investigation and successful prosecution of match manipulation cases.

  • The methodology has been proven effective, since 2013, and has been determined to be court admissible, having been presented as evidence in more than 100 actual investigations in sport courts, civil courts and police prosecutions;

  • The methodology is complex and requires presentation, with written quantitative analysis, compared to active video analysis;

  • Scientifically, the methodology is considered to produce 99% certainty of its conclusions and, according to its developer, has never been proven to produce an erroneous conclusion of match-fixing;

  • The questions, only recently received from the STJD Auditor, reveal a profound lack of understanding of the methodology of the expert, which could have easily been remedied by the requested (and denied) presentation of the evidence.

• Questionable STJD Auditor: For reasons unknown, and hard to explain, Mr. Mauro Marcelo was assigned by the STJD as Auditor Rapporteur to conduct the investigation of our claims that Palmeiras received a disproportionate benefit from the combination of practical bias, material error, and match manipulation during the 2023 Brasileirão.

  • Mr. Mauro Marcelo has demonstrated, through his own social media, an obvious bias in favor of Palmeiras;

  • On 03.14.2024, during the earliest stages of our requests for an investigation, Mr. Mauro Marcelo already reached his conclusions by declaring that our claims were frivolous and not to be taken seriously;

  • Since then, Mr. Mauro Marcelo has actively engaged in arguments over social media, using inappropriate language, to argue with supporters of Botafogo who challenged him over his obvious Palmeiras bias;

  • In any serious proceedings, Mr. Mauro Marcelo would have recused himself from acting as Rapporteur Auditor of this investigation, or in this case, he actually should have been removed from the case by STJD Presidency

  • The punishment he is seeking against me follows exactly the repeated public requests of Palmeiras’ manager

  • In the end, the ‘subject’ of his  investigation, which may have been Palmeiras, has become the victim, and the whistleblower has become the target – entirely because the STJD has empowered an individual with an obvious conflict of interest to lead an important investigation.

• Fake Investigation: Having never been contacted to discuss the evidence we provided, we can only conclude this was a charade of an investigation, only intended to discredit the “informant”.

  • Only four days prior to the completion of the report, and the publication of its findings, were we invited to respond to 35 questions;

  • I was summoned about the questions only in 07.01.2024, and, although I requested for more time to answer them, he had already planned to reject our claims with a “final” report that amazingly was finished only four days later, despite so many questions that were still unanswered;

  • Such questions were clearly written, with the assistance of a technology market competitor, in an attempt to discredit the methodology of the expert who prepared the reports I submitted – and it was clear that the STJD Auditor’s questions were not tendered in an honest attempt to investigate, but rather to support a pre-determined outcome of the investigation. Even as we looked forward to the opportunity to reveal his ignorance of the methodology, and his obvious bias, he decided to finalize his report, without waiting for our responses;

  • Prior to our involvement in the case, several other football clubs in Brazil were notified that they were named as accused parties (entirely contrary to our assertions) and they were encouraged to present their submissions condemning our claims and supporting my punishment. One can only conclude that the confidential process of the STJD was selectively modified so that confidential submissions of documents could be disclosed to affected clubs to recruit opposition to our calls for investigations. Clubs that we believe were victims of match manipulation were dishonestly told that they were accused of irregularities. Faced with such intimidating requests of an auditor at the STJD, they had no choice but to comply and oppose our calls for investigation.

​

After the above clarification of the facts, we should restate the chronology of the facts of what was presented before Brazilian authorities so that my intentions are not misread by the STJD, other authorities and the general public. 

 

I am making available below a brief timeline of the main requests I have presented to date:

​

1. 12.06.2023 (Case 396/2023 - STJD): Request for an investigation by SAF Botafogo, attaching reports from Good Game! on the conduct of referees in several matches of the 2023 Brazilian Championship.

2. 03.11.2024 (Case no. 54/2024 - Appendix 57 - STJD): Submission in response to Order 143/2024, arguing against the order to present criminal evidence, as STJD has no jurisdiction over criminal matters, and quoting my fundamental rights of free speech and of non-self-incrimination.

3. 04.22.2024 (Testimony at the CPI): I testified at the CPI, presenting several videos and reports from the company Good Game! on match-fixing.

4. 04.23.2024 (Inquiry 109/2024 - STJD): I requested to open an investigation, stating that I had relevant documents to the ongoing procedures and requesting confidentiality for the material.

5. 05.10.2024 (CPI): I submitted new documents to the CPI, including videos, Good Game!’s analysis of specific matches and a technical report on 170 Brazilian Championship matches.

6. 05.13.2024 (Inominate Measure no. 082/2024 - STJD): I presented a submission against Palmeiras' request that I should refrain from mentioning Palmeiras in connection with match-fixing.

7. 06.04.2024 (Inquiry 121/2024 - STJD): Submission presenting documents on match-fixing available on a password-protected link and requesting confidentiality in the proceedings.

8. 06.06.2024 (CPI): Submission with a new requirement to the CPI, reiterating previous requests and requesting that the Good Game! experts be heard on the same date as the Sportradar representative.

9. 06.10.2024 (Inquiry 121/2024 - STJD): Submission informing the availability of the documentation requested by Mr. Mauro Marcelo under the Inquiry, with a new request for confidentiality and provision of the password to access the link.

10. 07.01.2024 (Inquiry 121/2024 - STJD): Submission requesting 10 days to submit the responses for all 35 questions posed by Mr. Mauro Marcelo.

11. 07.02.2024 (Inquiry 121/2024 - STJD): Decision by Mr. Mauro Marcelo giving 2 days to answer all 35 questions.

12. 07.04.2024 (Inquiry 121/2024 - STJD): Submission asking more time to answer the questions, especially in view of the American holiday (Independence day).

13. 07.05.2024 (Inquiry 121/2024 - STJD): Mr. Mauro Marcelo denies the additional deadline and issues the report. 

 

As can be seen, this situation as a whole is truly worrying. I trust and expect that the Sports Attorney General’s Office will not accept the complaint and will close the Sports Investigation. 

.