Preventive prisonment in economic crimes

Abstract

Objective: Having in the legal system the hypotheses that authorize pre-trial detention and its concrete need, this article has the general objective of analyzing pre-trial detention in economic crimes in the light of law, doctrine and Brazilian jurisprudence, as a precautionary detention of a procedural nature, to ensure the economic order. Methodology: For the research, the analytical-descriptive method was used to approach themes related to the object of study, as well as research into doctrines, scientific articles and judicial decisions. Results: Pretrial detention as a guarantor of the Economic Order, according to the new wording of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is an important and necessary instrument in the service of achieving the effectiveness of criminal proceedings in cases of economic crimes. These crimes are not violent, but their social effects are harmful and affect a wide range of people, because the legal good that is protected is meta-individual. In addition, economic crime constitutes a breach of the Constitutional Order and directly affects the country’s economic development and must be fought promptly and efficiently. For this, if the accused poses a risk to the investigation or the process, and if there are no other precautionary measures restricting freedom capable of curbing the harmfulness of his conduct, his preventive detention must be decreed. Contributions: The concrete need for preventive detention, as a precautionary detention of a procedural nature, to guarantee the economic order, must be obtained by imputing conducts that are offensive to it, because the economic order must be considered a fraction of the legal order. Therefore, acts committed against the economic order are acts committed against the legal order, in the exact terms of the categories contained and described by the laws that compose them and, therefore, such laws must be strictly applied, especially when the facts are being treated in the legal field. -criminal, in which extensive interpretations are not allowed, by virtue of the fundamental rule of the rule of law that criminal laws only admit exhaustive and restrictive interpretation.