Brazil's National Council of Justice suspended Judge Gabriela Hardt from her position for two years on Tuesday [1].
The decision marks a significant disciplinary action against a former key figure in Operation Lava Jato, the massive corruption probe that reshaped Brazil's political and legal landscape. By penalizing the judge for irregularities in the handling of billion-dollar settlements, the council is addressing the transparency and legality of how the state recovered funds from corporate corruption.
The plenary of the National Council of Justice reached the decision on Aug. 4, 2026 [2]. The council voted 10 to 4 to impose the two-year suspension [3]. Hardt previously served as a substitute for Judge Sergio Moro during the height of the Lava Jato investigations.
The suspension stems from violations of professional duties related to the homologation of a leniency agreement [4]. Specifically, the council found a lack of minimum care in the process and noted irregularities regarding the authorization of fund transfers to a private foundation [4]. These failures occurred during the processing of a high-value settlement intended to recoup stolen public assets.
Despite the suspension from her duties, Hardt will continue to receive her monthly salary of R$ 77,000 [5]. This financial arrangement follows the standard administrative procedures for judicial suspensions in Brazil, where the official is removed from active case management but retains compensation.
The ruling reflects ongoing scrutiny of the Lava Jato legacy. While the operation recovered billions of reais, later reviews by judicial bodies have questioned the procedural rigor used by some judges to secure those results, including the use of private entities to manage recovered funds.
“The council voted 10 to 4 to impose the two-year suspension.”
This ruling signals a shift toward judicial accountability for the architects of Operation Lava Jato. By penalizing a judge for procedural lapses in billion-dollar agreements, the CNJ is establishing that the ends of recovering public funds do not justify the means of bypassing legal safeguards. It further complicates the legacy of the probe, suggesting that some of its most celebrated successes were built on flawed legal foundations.
