A major police operation in Santa Catarina has exposed an alleged scheme involving a doctor, a lawyer, and a secretary accused of creating fraudulent medical certificates to secure the release of prisoners, including criminal leaders. The operation, led by the Gaeco, resulted in multiple arrests and the execution of 35 search warrants across Santa Catarina and Paraná.
The central figure in the investigation is gastroenterologist Marcelo Marques Costa. According to authorities, when police attempted to arrest him at his home in Camboriú, the doctor reacted violently, firing at least four shots at a military police officer. The officer survived the attack and is reported to be in good health. The doctor, who graduated from the University of Regional Blumenau (FURB) in 1998, had his medical registration active with the Regional Council of Medicine (CRM).
Also arrested were lawyer Amanda Letícia Moraes Cunha and secretary Juliete Francisco. The investigation alleges the group worked in collusion to facilitate the release of inmates from the Itajaí Prison Complex. The secretary was reportedly responsible for negotiating fees and scheduling appointments with prisoners, while the lawyer allegedly acted as an intermediary between the criminals and the doctor, and filed requests for house arrest based on the fraudulent medical documents.
The fraudulent certificates allegedly simulated serious and non-existent comorbidities to justify requests for freedom or house arrest. Authorities state that criminal leaders who benefited from this scheme frequently cut their electronic ankle monitors and became fugitives. During the operation, agents seized over R$100,000 in cash, weapons, and documents, along with files containing images of the fraudulent medical certificates, exams, and prescriptions.
The CRM-SC has announced it will investigate the doctor's ethical conduct in light of the allegations. The Brazilian Bar Association (OAB) in Santa Catarina stated it is monitoring the developments of the operation, named 'Efeito Colateral,' and will initiate disciplinary proceedings if the facts are confirmed, which could lead to the lawyer's expulsion from the organization.
The defense for the lawyer stated she is cooperating with authorities and that it is premature to draw conclusions, expressing confidence in her innocence. The defense for the secretary argued that her client held only an administrative role at the clinic and had no involvement or autonomy in issuing medical documents. Both legal teams are taking measures to clarify the facts with the judiciary.
Based on reporting from g1.