Odebrecht expresses its indignation regarding the attempt to raise a procedural issue regarding a note from its CEO, Marcelo Odebrecht, addressed to their lawyers. We would like to clarify the following points on that subject:
- The executive handed the note to a police officer so that it could be forwarded to his lawyers, which demonstrates an act of good faith. The police officer delivered the message to the lawyers, but saw fit to copy it and present it to the judge overseeing the case, with questions regarding the term “destroy emails drill ships RR.”
- Just by reading the note it is clear that there is no reason for such questions. The note was drafted by the executive on the basis of the court order that issued arrest warrants for Odebrecht directors. It instructs his lawyers on several topics regarding the clarifications to be provided when filing a writ of habeas corpus. In fact, the title of the note is “Points for HC (habeas corpus).”
- Regarding the exchange of emails between Odebrecht executives, the alleged reason for arresting the company’s executives – a manifestly illegal measure – the CEO uses the expression “destroy email drill ships RR,” referring to Roberto Ramos, the sender of one of the messages, who worked on Odebrecht Oil & Gas. A handwritten arrow links the words “destroy emails drill ships RR” to the arguments that the CEO suggests to explain the discussions contained in the sequence of messages.
- The CEO lists facts that will clarify that the subject of [the email] was a business deal to be carried out between private companies (among them Sete Brasil) for the construction and operation of drill ships. In the course of this discussion, contrary to what the presiding judge interpreted, the term “sobre-preço” used by Roberto Ramos has nothing to do with “overbilling” or any irregularities. “Sobre-preço" merely represents contractual compensation that Odebrecht Oil & Gas, as the operator of the drill ships, proposed to Sete Brazil, and covers the reimbursement for the operation and maintenance costs of the drill ships (“cost”), plus a pre-determined fee on that cost. In other words, it is a translation of a term commonly used in the market – “cost plus fee.”
Therefore there is nothing in Marcelo Odebrecht’s note to suggest that any illegality has been committed. Besides being uncharacteristic of the executive, it would make no sense to suggest “destroying” (not the contents, as intended, but literally, as interpreted the police authority) emails that were seized during the operation conducted in November 2014, which were widely investigated and made public. Destroying something that is already in the custody of the PF and Judge Sergio Moro makes no sense. In other words, the term “destroy” must have a different meaning.
Finally, Odebrecht regrets that an attempt was made to create a procedural issue regarding an expression that was clearly taken out of context. Through a petition and personal contact, the company’s lawyers have attempted to show the police that it makes no sense to raise suspicions about the subject, but unfortunately they have opted to publicize it and lend a whiff of scandal to a note that merely contains a client’s instructions to his lawyers – thereby violating the [confidential] relationship that the law guarantees to all Brazilian citizens.