Brazil · Public Accounts

Brazil’s federal Court of Accounts has completed its largest review yet of “Pix amendments” — the fast, lightly supervised budget transfers that lawmakers can steer to states and towns — and found irregularities in 82 of 100 transfers examined, with roughly a quarter of the money diverted, misspent or impossible to trace.

Brazil’s Federal Court of Accounts (TCU) in Brasilia carried out the audit of Pix amendments.

One-stop reference

Company Intelligence

Every listed company in Latin America — financials, ownership and structure for 1,450+ companies across 26 exchanges, in one place.

Browse the directory →RTAsk Rio TimesWhat this means, and what’s next›

Key Facts

— Scope. The TCU audited 100 special transfers made from 2020 to 2024 to 73 municipalities and the states of Sao Paulo and Para, worth R$198.11 million (about US$38.9 million).

— Irregularities. Auditors flagged problems in 82 of the 100 transfers.

— Damage. The court put effective or potential losses to the treasury at R$49.07 million (US$9.6 million) — about a quarter of the audited money.

— Not final. These are technical-staff findings; the court’s full bench has not yet ruled.

What the auditors found

The audit, part of the TCU’s Special Plan for Auditing Special Transfers, broke the flagged money into three buckets. Auditors could not trace R$26.36 million (US$5.2 million) that beneficiaries moved through ordinary, non-dedicated bank accounts — so-called “transit accounts.” A further R$14.95 million (US$2.9 million) paid for expenses that lacked valid legal or tax documentation, or was spent on purposes other than those declared. And R$14.1 million (US$2.8 million) fell under “total or partial non-delivery of the work and overbilling” — cases where, in the auditors’ words, the money left the federal coffers but the public service never reached the citizen.

Among the practices the report says could fall under criminal law: bid-rigging, the hiring of companies already barred from public contracts, and tenders written to steer results and shut out competitors. Earlier reporting has linked some Pix amendments to contracts for festivals, concerts and sporting events.

The “transit account” problem

The single largest category — the R$26.36 million (US$5.2 million) that vanished from view — points to a structural weakness. When a town or state routes an earmark through a general-purpose account rather than a dedicated one, the TCU says, it “breaks the backbone of financial tracking” and makes it impossible for federal authorities to confirm whether the money was actually used for its stated purpose. Fixing that is now a formal demand: the court gave the Management Ministry (MGI) 120 days to update the “Special Transfers” module of Transferegov, the federal platform that tracks these payments, so recipients can no longer rewrite their spending plans at will.

The R$55 million question — and the names that are missing

The headline damage figure needs a footnote. Add the three flagged categories together and they come to about R$55.4 million (US$10.9 million); the TCU’s official damage estimate is lower, at R$49.07 million (US$9.6 million), because some debts were counted under more than one category and were stripped out to avoid double-counting. Both numbers appear in the coverage, and the gap is simply gross versus net.

The bigger gap is a different one. The report identifies the transfers, the towns and the irregularities — but it does not name the members of Congress who directed the flagged amendments. That omission is the story’s loudest silence: the Pix-amendment model exists precisely so that individual lawmakers can point federal money wherever they choose, yet the document that catalogues the problems stops short of the people who signed off on them.

What happens next

Because the TCU has no criminal powers, its findings go to Supreme Federal Court (STF) Justice Flavio Dino, who is rapporteur of ADPF 854, the case setting new transparency and traceability rules for parliamentary earmarks. The material could feed future prosecutions. For now, the report is a set of technical findings signed by Justice Walton Alencar Rodrigues; the court’s full bench has not yet issued a ruling.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are “Pix amendments”?
They are special budget transfers Brazilian lawmakers can send straight to states and municipalities without a formal execution agreement, nicknamed after Brazil’s instant-payment system Pix because the money moves fast and with little tracking.

What is the TCU?
The Tribunal de Contas da Uniao, Brazil’s Federal Court of Accounts — the body that audits how federal money is spent.

Does the audit name the lawmakers responsible?
No. It documents the transfers and irregularities but not the members of Congress behind them. The findings now go to STF Justice Flavio Dino.

Sources: Brazil’s Federal Court of Accounts (TCU).

Read More from The Rio Times

The Rio Times · Power Map

See who really holds power in Latin America

Click to open the Power Map →