The Sixth Panel of the Superior Court of Justice ruled that evidence lawfully obtained in a civil lawsuit may be used in a criminal investigation, even when the civil proceeding is later dismissed without a ruling on the merits due to lack of interest to sue.
The understanding reinforces that the validity of evidence is linked to the legality of its obtainment at the time it was collected. Therefore, the subsequent dismissal of the lawsuit on procedural grounds does not, by itself, automatically render the evidence produced null and void, provided that legal guarantees and the necessary judicial authorization were observed.
The decision is part of the broader debate on evidence sharing between different legal spheres and strengthens the application of the principle of the commonality of evidence. In practice, elements obtained in one proceeding may be used in another, provided that the lawfulness of their origin is preserved and the legal limits of their use are respected.
For companies, the precedent has relevant implications. Information produced or obtained in civil disputes — such as internal documents, electronic data, financial records, corporate communications, and strategic materials — may, in certain circumstances, be used in criminal investigations.
This scenario requires a more careful approach in civil lawsuits involving early production of evidence, search and seizure measures, document production, access to databases, technical expert examinations, or any procedure that may expose sensitive information of the organization.
The decision also reinforces the need for integration among teams responsible for civil litigation, white-collar criminal law, compliance, data protection, and corporate investigations. In sensitive cases, an isolated analysis of a single legal sphere may be insufficient to properly assess the legal, reputational, and regulatory risks involved.
In this context, companies are advised to review their document and data management policies, establish protocols for preserving and producing evidence, previously assess the risks of invasive evidentiary measures, and adopt procedural strategies that consider possible criminal developments.
It is also relevant to map sensitive information, restrict internal access, document the origin and integrity of corporate data, and prepare coordinated legal responses for situations in which evidence produced in one sphere may be shared with another.
The precedent shows that the management of corporate litigation should be approached in a multidisciplinary manner. In an environment of increased circulation of evidence between proceedings, information governance and integrated legal strategy become essential to protect the company and its officers.
