Flamengo striker Bruno Enrique successfully avoided a harsher punishment this Thursday (11/13) in a court case investigating allegations of result manipulation. The players’ defense persuaded the High Court of Sport Justice (STJD) that they had no intention of harming the team itself, and this argument prevented the matter from being included in the most important article of the Brazilian Code of Sport Justice (CBJD).
Please also read
-
sports
Bruno Enrique was ordered to pay a fine by the STJD General Assembly. understand
-
sports
STJD will resume Bruno Enrique’s trial this Thursday. Understand the scenario
-
sports
STJD sets conclusion date for Bruno Henrique trial
-
sports
Leila Pereira talks about Bruno Henrique’s trial. check it out
4 images
Close the modal.
1 out of 4
Bruno Enrique appeared in person at the High Court of Sports Justice (STJD).
Play/X2/4
Plenary judgment evaluates Flamengo striker’s appeal against sentence
Play/X3/4
The player was handed a 12-game suspension and a R$60,000 fine by the first judge.
Play/X4/4
The jury understood that the player did not intentionally accept the cards to benefit his brother’s sports bets.
Play/×
The decision will allow the player to play freely for Flamengo, but he will have to pay a fine of R$100,000.
Bruno Henrique has been accused of forcing a yellow card against Santos in 2023 amid an investigation into sports betting. However, the auditors understood that this action was not a deliberate act against Flamengo’s interests, but rather a move inserted within the context of the match.
The defense team, led by lawyer Michel Assef Filho, argued that the card was the result of a common tactical decision in football and was being used to “zero” the number of bookings and make more important matches later in the season. The claim is that this does not amount to manipulation of results or malicious intent against the club.
STJD partially accepted the paper. Bruno Enrique was acquitted under Article 243 of the CBJD, which stipulates that anyone who “deliberately commits an act harmful to the team he/she defends” is subject to a suspension of up to two years, and ultimately only Article 243-A, which deals with “acts contrary to sporting ethics,” falls under the penalty.
The decision was not unanimous. The six auditors considered that the yellow card received by Bruno Enrique did not affect the result of the match and was therefore not subject to hooks. Three other auditors called for the attackers to be suspended, but were in the minority. There are no resource possibilities.
About The Author
