Entenda por que relação de Moro com consultoria dos EUA gera questionamentos

According to Folha (February 3, 2022), Alvarez & Marsal informed the TCU, at the end of January 2022, that the contract with Moro's consulting firm in Brazil was signed on November 23, 2020 and was in force until June 2, 2021, and that the employment contract in the U.S. was signed on April 7, 2021 and ended on October 26, 2021. The firm explained to the São Paulo courts that the initial hiring was as a legal entity because a foreign employee could only be hired in the U.S. after obtaining a work visa.

Source: Entenda por que relação de Moro com consultoria dos EUA gera questionamentos — Folha de S.Paulo, Feb. 3, 2022 · questions "How was Moro's income paid?" and the previous one (paragraphs on the contract in Brazil and in the U.S.) · open original ↗

News report · full text examined · accessed on Oct. 25, 2026

Limitations: Dates attributed by Folha to the firm's report to the TCU; the official letter was not opened. UOL (November 1, 2021) says the contract was valid "until yesterday" (October 31, 2021) and was due to end in October 2022 (see fonte). Unresolved discrepancy: Folha's text distinguishes the Brazilian contract (until June 2, 2021) from the U.S. employment contract (until October 26, 2021).

Folha reports that, according to Alvarez & Marsal, Moro received US$656 thousand gross for 11 months of work; Moro said he had agreed to a gross salary of US$45 thousand per month, plus a US$150 thousand hiring bonus, and that he returned R$67 thousand of the bonus for leaving before the two-year contract term. According to the firm, 65% of the pay was paid in Brazil, through a consulting company Moro opened during his quarantine period, and most of the taxes were paid in the U.S.

Source: Entenda por que relação de Moro com consultoria dos EUA gera questionamentos — Folha de S.Paulo, Feb. 3, 2022 · questions "How much did he earn from A&M?" and "How was Moro's income paid?" · open original ↗

News report · full text examined · accessed on Oct. 25, 2026

Limitations: Amounts attributed by Folha to the firm and to Moro, with no document opened; conversions into reais are Folha's, at the February 2022 exchange rate. Do not add to fonte (same statement by Moro) or to the piauí figure (R$3.7 million gross, a different basis).

Folha describes that Moro's contract with Alvarez & Marsal contained a clause preventing him from providing services to Odebrecht and to other clients of the firm that could create a conflict with decisions he made as a judge, and from passing on confidential information obtained in government or as a judge; Moro said that the mention of Odebrecht was his own demand. The firm states that the unit in which he worked (disputes and investigations) is separate from the judicial administrator, and Moro and the firm do not disclose the clients served, citing confidentiality.

Source: Entenda por que relação de Moro com consultoria dos EUA gera questionamentos — Folha de S.Paulo, Feb. 3, 2022 · questions "Was there a risk of conflict of interest?" and "Which clients did Moro serve...?" · open original ↗

News report · full text examined · accessed on Oct. 25, 2026

Limitations: Content of the clause known only through Folha's description (and the statements by Moro and the firm); contract not opened. Folha also records that critics blame Lava Jato for the ruin of groups such as Odebrecht and accuse Moro of enrichment; see the response above. On the TCU: Folha says the investigation was started about a year earlier; the progress is in fonte.