STF restricts the use of COAF reports

In brief

Public investigative authorities have long relied on the Brazilian Financial Activities Control Council (COAF) to obtain financial information relevant to the investigation of potential illegal activities. However, access to this data has historically raised doubts regarding the absence of clear boundaries. The lack of well-defined rules allowed for broad and vaguely framed requests, increasing the risk of undue exposure of sensitive financial information of individuals and legal entities. On March 27, 2026, the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (STF) issued a preliminary injunction aimed at providing greater predictability and legal certainty to this scenario. The Court established objective criteria for sharing Financial Intelligence Reports (RIFs), including the prior existence of a formal investigation, clearly defined objectives, and the express prohibition of generic requests. The decision also reinforced the requirement of judicial or parliamentary oversight. The ruling seeks to strike an appropriate balance between the State’s interest in combating illicit activities and the protection of confidentiality and privacy.

The Brazilian Federal Supreme Court’s Preliminary Ruling

COAF plays an essential role in Brazil’s system of prevention and repression of economic crimes, especially in the fight against money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial offenses. In the execution of its role, COAF prepares the so-called Financial Intelligence Reports (RIFs), which consolidate and analyze information on financial operations considered atypical or suspicious, based on mandatory communications made by financial institutions and other regulated entities.

The relevance of RIFs for criminal and administrative prosecution is widely recognized. Nevertheless, their use has long been the subject of intense legal debate, especially regarding the possibility of COAF providing such information at the request of public authorities, without prior judicial authorization.

In this context, a controversy has emerged concerning the legality of requests for RIFs made by authorities such as the Police, Public Prosecutors, and other investigative agencies, in the absence of a specific court order. On one side, it has been argued that only COAF itself may, on its own initiative, forward reports to the competent authorities when relevant evidence of crimes, particularly money laundering, is identified. On the other side, a competing interpretation holds that investigative authorities may directly request RIFs, provided that certain limits are respected.

This interpretative divergence has generated significant legal uncertainty, exposing individuals and legal entities to the potential broad dissemination of sensitive financial data, including records of banking transactions, without clear parameters as to the requirements, purpose, and scope of such requests.

It was in this scenario that, on March 27, STF issued a preliminary injunction in Extraordinary Appeal No. 1,537,165, provisionally establishing important guidelines for the use of RIFs. In the decision, STF established minimum requirements for the disclosure of RIFs by COAF to public authorities, notably the need for the existence of a formally initiated procedure, such as a police investigation or administrative sanctioning proceeding, capable of justifying the request, as well as the clear delimitation of its criminal or administrative sanctioning purpose.

The Court also emphasized the importance of a clear identification of the parties under investigation, ruling out generic or indeterminate requests, and requiring strict thematic relevance between the content of the requested RIF and the specific object of the ongoing investigation.

Another central point of the decision was the express prohibition of the so-called fishing expedition, that is, the use of the RIF as the first or only investigative measure, with the objective of searching for evidence that does not yet exist. Accordingly, the Court made clear that the RIF must bear a direct connection to the facts under investigation and may not serve as a generic instrument for uncovering potential wrongdoings.

In addition, the injunction indicated the need for a judicial or a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (CPI) decision for the provision of the RIFs, as well as prohibited the request of these reports to instruct procedures that do not have a criminal or administrative sanctioning nature, ruling out their use in generic, merely fiscal, or other investigations incompatible with the legal purpose of COAF.

This is a decision of great practical relevance, as it seeks to balance the effectiveness of mechanisms aimed at combating financial crimes with the protection of fundamental rights related to intimacy, privacy, and data confidentiality.

Our firm is closely monitoring the progress of the judgment of Extraordinary Appeal No. 1,537,165, considering that the preliminary injunction will still be subject to final review by STF, which may confirm, adjust, or redefine the parameters established herein for the sharing and use of RIFs in Brazil.