Casal Alexandre de Moraes e Viviane Barci

Moraes Family Seeks Alternatives After Magnitsky Act Sanctions: Understand the Implications

27/10/2025

The sanctions imposed by the United States under the Magnitsky Act continue to reverberate in Brazil. Recently, Viviane Barci de Moraes, a lawyer and wife of Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, was added to the list of sanctioned individuals—a measure that freezes assets and prohibits commercial transactions with U.S. citizens and companies. The response was swift: the registration of a new CNPJ for her law firm in Brasília. But can this strategy truly work under the stringent rules of American legislation? Let’s break down the details of this complex situation.

What Are the Magnitsky Act Sanctions?

Before diving into the specific case, it’s essential to understand what the Magnitsky Act represents and why it carries such significant impact.

Enacted in the United States in 2012, the Magnitsky Act was originally created in response to the death of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who exposed government corruption and was later imprisoned and killed in custody. The legislation allows the U.S. government to sanction foreign individuals accused of human rights violations or significant corruption.

How Do These Sanctions Work?

When someone is added to the Magnitsky list, the consequences are severe and far-reaching:

Asset Freeze: All assets and properties of the sanctioned individual in the United States are immediately frozen
Transaction Ban: U.S. citizens and companies are prohibited from conducting any business with the sanctioned individual
Travel Restrictions: Visas for entry into the U.S. are canceled or denied
Ripple Effect: Sanctions can extend to companies and entities related to the sanctioned individual

The Attempt to Circumvent Sanctions

After being included in the sanctions, Viviane Barci de Moraes made a move that drew attention: she registered a new CNPJ for her law firm in Brasília, with a registered capital of R$ 100,000.

At first glance, this might seem like a clever maneuver—after all, a new CNPJ would technically represent a new, independent company. However, the reality is far more complicated.

Why This Strategy Doesn’t Work?

The Magnitsky Act has sophisticated mechanisms to prevent exactly this kind of workaround. Among them, the so-called “50% rule” stands out.

Understanding the “50% Rule”

This rule is key to grasping why the new CNPJ doesn’t resolve the sanctions issue.

The “50% rule” stipulates that any entity in which a sanctioned individual holds 50% or more ownership is automatically subject to the same sanctions, regardless of when it was created or registered.

How This Applies to the Case:

Majority Ownership: If Viviane holds more than 50% of the new firm, it is automatically sanctioned
Immediate Application: It doesn’t matter if the CNPJ was established before or after the sanctions
No Loopholes: The rule was specifically designed to prevent such evasion strategies
Active Monitoring: The U.S. Treasury Department continuously tracks new entities linked to sanctioned individuals

Thus, the new firm with R$ 100,000 in registered capital likely starts under the same restrictions that prompted its creation.

The Case of the Lex Institute of Legal Studies

The situation becomes even more complicated when we examine Viviane Barci de Moraes’ other business interests.

The Lex Institute of Legal Studies, where she holds a 25% stake, has also been targeted by U.S. sanctions. This shows that American authorities are not limiting their actions to companies with majority control.

Implications for Minority Stakeholders:

Case-by-Case Analysis: Even stakes below 50% can be sanctioned if deemed significant
Impact on Other Partners: The remaining 75% of the Lex Institute is also affected by the restrictions
Operational Limitations: The institute can no longer conduct transactions with U.S. entities
Institutional Reputation: Inclusion on sanctions lists damages the organization’s credibility

The Political Context of the Sanctions

To fully understand this situation, it’s necessary to consider the broader political context that led to these sanctions.

The sanctions against Viviane Barci de Moraes were announced alongside the cancellation of visas for several other individuals linked to Justice Alexandre de Moraes, including:

José Levi (former Attorney General)
Airton Vieira (former judge instructor in the office)
Marco Antonio Martin Vargas (former auxiliary judge at the TSE)
Rafael Henrique Janela Tamai Rocha (former auxiliary judge)
Cristina Yukiko Kusahara (chief of staff)

U.S. Pressure:

These measures came at a time of diplomatic tension between Brazil and the United States, particularly related to:

Judicial proceedings against former President Jair Bolsonaro
Alexandre de Moraes’ rulings on big tech companies
Criticism from President Donald Trump of the Brazilian judiciary
Imposition of trade tariffs on Brazilian products

Divergences in the STF: The Luiz Fux Case

Parallel to the international sanctions issue, the Brazilian Supreme Court continues to adjudicate cases related to the events of January 8, 2023.

Justice Luiz Fux has been drawing attention for consistently diverging from the reporting justice, Alexandre de Moraes, in these proceedings.

Fux’s Recent Vote:

On Thursday (September 25), Fux delivered votes to acquit two defendants linked to the January 8 events:

Case of Cristiane Angélica Dumont Araújo:

Fux argued that the evidence does not prove she damaged public property during the invasions of the Planalto Palace and Congress. According to the justice, the procedural elements contradict the Attorney General’s indictment.

Original Charges (all contested by Fux):

Armed criminal association
Attempted violent abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law
Coup attempt
Qualified damage
Destruction of a listed property

What These Divergences Reveal?

Fux’s stance highlights that even within the Supreme Court, there are differing interpretations of the severity and legal nature of the January 8 events.

Points of Debate:

What’s the line between political protest and coup attempt?
What evidence is sufficient for such serious convictions?
How to balance punishment with proportionality?
To what extent does physical presence equate to active participation?

Practical Implications of Magnitsky Sanctions

Returning to the sanctions, it’s important to understand how they concretely affect the professional and personal lives of those targeted.

For Professional Activity:

Banking Limitations: Difficulties operating with banks that have U.S. operations
Payment Restrictions: Inability to receive payments from U.S. clients or through U.S. systems
Loss of International Clients: Multinational companies avoid hiring sanctioned professionals
Reputational Impact: Inclusion on the list negatively affects professional image

For Personal Life:

Inability to travel to the United States
Freezing of U.S. bank accounts
Prohibition on owning property in the U.S.
Challenges with international credit cards

The Effectiveness (or Ineffectiveness) of Evasion Strategies

Creating new CNPJs and restructuring businesses might seem like viable ways to bypass sanctions, but international experience shows they rarely succeed.

Why Evasion Strategies Fail:

Tracking Technology: The U.S. Treasury uses sophisticated algorithms to identify related entities
International Cooperation: Information is shared among allied countries
Ongoing Monitoring: New companies linked to sanctioned individuals are permanently tracked
Severe Penalties: Attempting to evade sanctions can lead to additional penalties
Reputational Effect: Evasion attempts further worsen public perception

Legal Alternatives to Address Sanctions

Though challenging, there are legitimate avenues to challenge or reverse Magnitsky Act sanctions.

Available Options:

Administrative Petition: Request a formal review from the U.S. Treasury Department
Lawsuit in the U.S.: Contest the sanctions in American courts (a lengthy and costly process)
Demonstration of Change: Prove that the circumstances leading to the sanctions have changed
Diplomatic Pressure: Governments can negotiate on behalf of their citizens (though this is rare and politically complex)

International Precedent

The Brazilian case is not isolated. Several countries have faced similar situations where judicial authorities or their relatives were sanctioned by the United States.

Lessons from Other Cases:

Russia: Dozens of judges and prosecutors were sanctioned, with permanent results
Venezuela: Judicial authorities have been under sanctions for years
Nicaragua: Sanctioned magistrates failed to reverse the measures
China: Hong Kong officials have faced similar sanctions since 2020

Historical patterns suggest that once imposed, Magnitsky sanctions are rarely lifted, especially in politically motivated cases.

Impact on Brazilian Legal Practice

The sanctions against a high-profile lawyer like Viviane Barci de Moraes have repercussions for the entire Brazilian legal community.

Issues Raised:

Can lawyers be held accountable for their spouses’ actions?
What’s the limit of international pressure on legal professionals?
How to protect professional independence amid political sanctions?
What are the defense rights of sanctioned professionals?

National Sovereignty vs. International Jurisdiction

This case raises fundamental questions about the limits of national sovereignty in the face of international sanctions.

The Debate:

Sovereignty Perspective: The U.S. shouldn’t be able to sanction Brazilian citizens for acting within Brazilian laws
Internationalist Perspective: Countries have the right to decide who their citizens and companies can trade with
Grey Area: What happens when legal actions in one country are deemed human rights violations by another?

Conclusion: A Stalemate with No Easy Solution

The Moraes family’s attempt to circumvent sanctions by creating a new CNPJ highlights the complexity and reach of the Magnitsky Act. The rules were specifically designed to close loopholes and prevent evasion tactics.

The “50% rule” ensures that simple corporate restructurings aren’t enough to escape restrictions. Moreover, the inclusion of the Lex Institute, where the stake is minority, shows that U.S. authorities are willing to apply sanctions broadly.

Realities to Consider:

The sanctions are likely to remain in place indefinitely
Evasion strategies tend to be ineffective and may worsen the situation
The professional and personal impact is significant and long-lasting
Real solutions require complex political or diplomatic changes

Meanwhile, debates within the STF continue, with divergences among justices revealing differing views on sensitive cases. The situation stands as an example of the tensions between national sovereignty, international pressure, and judicial independence.

Follow our content to better understand the behind-the-scenes of Brazilian politics, international relations, and the practical impacts of judicial and diplomatic decisions on your daily life!

Sources:

Sources addressing the application of the Magnitsky Act and its impacts in cases of international sanctions.

https://maketruthtriumphagain.com/en/maduro-handed-it-all-over-but-let-me-stay-in-power/