The introduction of Law 15,397 on April 30, 2026, has brought significant changes to the Brazilian penal system by explicitly criminalizing the act of providing a bank account for the movement of resources linked to criminal activity. This new penal type, established in Article 171, § 2º, VII, of the Penal Code, states that “one who cedes, free of charge or for payment, a bank account for the transit of resources intended for the financing of criminal activity or resulting from such activity.”
In contrast, Article 1 of Law 9,613/1998 establishes a penalty of three to ten years of imprisonment, in addition to a fine, for the concealment or disguise of the nature, origin, location, disposition, movement, or ownership of assets, rights, or values derived directly or indirectly from a criminal offense. The proximity between these typical figures raises interpretive difficulties that go beyond a mere comparison of sanctions.
Historically, the use of third-party bank accounts has been identified as a possible mechanism for patrimonial concealment. The interposition of people between the true beneficiary and resources from a criminal offense can hinder financial tracking and allow the disguise of asset ownership. However, it cannot be concluded that every provision of a bank account necessarily represents a typical behavior of money laundering.
Read Also: AI agents raise corporate compliance concerns
The introduction of specific incrimination, with substantially lower repression, imposes the need to investigate whether the legislator intended to reach a modality of injustice previously situated in a zone of normative uncertainty or establish differentiated legal treatment for certain forms of peripheral participation in criminal financial operations, without necessarily revoking previous legislation.
Understanding the New Penal Type
The discussion assumes special relevance in the face of three fundamental problems. The first consists of determining whether the crimes protect distinct legal assets and present effectively autonomous constitutive elements. The second involves the possibility of cumulative imputation for the provision of a “conta laranja” and money laundering, especially when both accusations are based on the same bank provision.
The third problem relates to the effects of legislative innovation on prior facts, including convictions that have become final, without necessarily revoking previous legislation. The central hypothesis of this study is that Law 15,397/26 introduced a new parameter of normative differentiation, requiring greater precision in the imputation of money laundering, without necessarily establishing a universal relationship of specialty or revoking previous legislation.
The structure of the typical provision of a “conta laranja” is based on the recognition that Article 171, § 2º, VII, of the Penal Code does not indiscriminately criminalize the loan of bank accounts. The verbal nucleus of the type is to cede, free of charge or for payment, a bank account for a purpose expressly delimited, not indiscriminately criminalizing the loan of bank accounts. The normative expression “so that they transit” establishes the connection of the cession to resources intended for the financing of criminal activity or resulting from such activity.
Read Also: STJ Adds Fifth Ground to Reclamação Under New Law
Consequently, the mere provision of an account to a third party, devoid of a subjective relationship with the described criminal purpose, does not satisfy the elements of the new penal type. The incrimination did not institute objective penal responsibility of the account holder for all acts performed on the account, requiring demonstration of dolus. It is necessary to demonstrate dolus, understood from the consciousness and will related to the cession and the circumstances that confer penal relevance to the behavior.
Apart from the distinction between the new penal type and money laundering, the concept of “activity criminosa” is also noteworthy. The legislator did not restrict the origin or destination of resources to specific crimes, allowing the provision of a bank account to be associated with various criminal activities, regardless of their nature.
This understanding is important in determining the scope of the new penal type, as it encompasses not only resources derived from criminal activity but also those intended for the financing of such activity, which can have a lawful origin, differing from money laundering.
Read Also: Brazilian judge suspends disputed credit card deductions
Implications for Prosecution and Imputation
The creation of the crime of providing a bank account for the movement of resources linked to criminal activity raises issues about the imputation of additional crimes, such as money laundering. To determine whether a behavior constitutes money laundering, it is necessary to identify the specific conduct, its adaptation to one of the legal modalities, and the required subjective elements.
The use of a third-party bank account can be a means of concealment or disguise, but its ability to configure money laundering depends on the concrete circumstances. A single operation can fulfill the penal type, and knowledge of the illicit origin of resources, in isolation, does not substitute for the demonstration of typical conduct.
The distinction between the autonomy of money laundering in relation to the preceding offense and the autonomy of the wrong of money laundering in relation to the provision of a bank account is essential, avoiding automatic imputation. This distinction is critical in delimiting the scope of the new penal type and avoiding the automatic imputation of money laundering based solely on the origin of the resources or the use of a third-party account.
