Individual corruption

The judiciary is commonly held to be unresponsive and has even been described as a 'black box' by Former President Lula da Silva. The Bertelsmann Foundation 2010 reports that citizens' access to justice varies significantly due to extreme income inequality in the country. According to Global Integrity 2009, access to justice for citizens earning less than twenty or thirty times the minimum wage is almost impossible. Despite the existence of a system of public defenders for poor defendants, good defence is extremely costly.

Freedom House 2011 reports that the judiciary is 'virtually powerless' when it comes to dealing with organised crime. Further, it is frequently subject to intimidation especially in rural areas. Together this results in inefficiencies, poor rulings and thus civil complaints.

Business Corruption

According to Global Integrity 2009, small companies often cannot afford the costs of a legal suit. The World Bank & IFC Enterprise Surveys 2009 reveals that almost half of small and medium companies operating in Brazil consider the functioning of the courts as major constraint for doing business in the country. Moreover, the US Department of State 2011 reports that the courts are overrun with cases resulting in a large backlog building up. Further, the courts at the lower levels are particularly prone to corruption, political influence and intimidation.

A CMI 2008 report indicates that the general lack of trust in the judicial system makes companies reluctant to file complaints to the courts in situations where they have been victims of corruption. According to the business survey report, filing complaints to courts is considered a waste of time and money by most respondents. Because of this, many companies prefer to remain silent about corrupt acts committed against them, even if such crimes have cost them important contracts.

Political Corruption

According to the US Department of State 2011, the Brazilian legal system is overburdened with corruption being most prevalent in local courts. Several legal provisions ensure the formal independence of judges, and the constitution grants the judiciary broad functional and structural autonomy. However, Freedom House 2010 reports that widely supported judicial reforms have been slowed by judicial inefficiency. For example, judges regularly employ legal formalities to overturn government modernisation efforts, including those aimed at privatising state-owned industries and reforming the public welfare system.

According to a November 2011 by El Pais, 62 judges have been accused of selling sentences for personal gain. The investigation, led by the Consejo de Control de Justicia, has been conducted in secret and has been extended to include friends and family who might be complicit in the illegal enrichment of the judges.

According to a July 2010 article by The Economist, the Brazilian judiciary has so far been virtually powerless in its scarce efforts to prosecute corrupt politicians, despite existing laws to limit parliamentary immunity for corruption. While impeached legislators formally lose their right to run for office in the future, many simply resign from office pre-emptively and then run for office again in the next election. The same picture is drawn by Global Integrity 2009, which reports that it is nearly impossible for a politician to be sentenced to prison for corruption in Brazil. Federal authorities can only be tried at the Supreme Court which rarely sentences politicians to prison. Due to delays and the many appeals that are granted by law, cases against politicians often lapse before they reach trial. Good attorneys can always have evidence dismissed as illustrated in the case of former President Fernando Collor de Mello. He was impeached for corruption by Congress in 1992, but now serves as senator. However, there are signs that this situation is under change. For example, when the Supreme Court convicted two politicians for corruption in the first half of 2010, it was the first successful prosecution since 1985. In addition, the Ficha Limpa Law ('clean record') approved and signed in June 2010 gives the Supreme Court an additional and potentially powerful legal tool to remove and prosecute politicians who have been previously convicted of a crime or are under suspicion. The resignation of six ministers in 2011 displays the government's zero tolerance towards corruption.

Transparency International 2006 reports that the overall picture of the judiciary is one of inefficiency and impunity. The high frequency of political corruption in Brazil is further aggravated by partial immunity protecting high-ranking public servants. Under the Constitution of 1988 (in Portuguese), only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to try the President, ministers, legislators and high court justices. Brazilian law is very procedural and the legal system functions inefficiently. The Bertelsmann Foundation 2010 reports that the country's legal system is one of the most crowded and contentious in the world. A culture of confrontation in the courts and rules that allow ample rights of appeal have led to a backlog of 20 million lawsuits.

According to the Bertelsmann Foundation 2010, distrust in the Brazilian judiciary has increased in the last two decades, and many judges have been involved in corruption scandals. An example of the questionable integrity of the judiciary was the scheme of sentences for sale uncovered in 2007 by the federal police. 5 magistrates - 3 chief judges and 2 federal judges – each received up to BRL 30,000 per month to emit and maintain decisions allowing the opening and running of bingos.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2012:
- Enforcing a commercial contract in Brazil requires a company to go through an average of 45 administrative procedures, taking an average of 731 days at a cost of 16.5% of the claim.

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012:
- Business executives give the Brazilian judiciary's level of independence from influences of government, citizens, or companies a score of 3.7 on a 7-point scale (1 being 'heavily influenced' and 7 'entirely independent').

- Business executives give the efficiency of the legal framework for private companies to settle disputes and to challenge the legality of government actions and/or regulations a score of 3.5 and 3.7 respectively on a 7-point scale (1 being 'extremely inefficient' and 7 'highly efficient').

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010:
- Citizens give the judiciary a score of 3.2 on a 5-point scale (1 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt').

- 20% of households surveyed consider the judiciary to be 'extremely corrupt'.

The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2009:
- Only 19.5% of companies believe the judiciary is fair, impartial and uncorrupted.

- 47% of companies surveyed identify the functioning of the courts as major business constraint.

Latinobarómetro: Annual Report 2008 (see English version):
- 41% of the surveyed households believe that is likely or very likely to obtain a favourable sentence if bribing a judge.

Transparency International: Bribe Payers Index 2008:
- Business executives give the judiciary a score of 3.3 on a 5-point scale (1 being 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt').