🇧🇷Brazil

Fraude Generalizada em Fundações de Apoio Militar (Desvios via Contratos Fraudulentos)

1 verified sources

Definition

Military justice convicted 5 officers + 2 civilians (2019, IME case). Army had issued 'idoneity certificates' for foundations later found to orchestrate fraud. R$ 15.7 million in Military Engineering Institute (IME) contracts fraudulently invoiced for equipment that was never received. 200 rigged bids identified.

Key Findings

  • Financial Impact: R$ 15.731.972,66 (IME case, single sentence); estimated full fraud ecosystem (2000-2021): R$ 100+ milhões across all Army support foundations
  • Frequency: Systematic from 2000-2021; 200+ fraudulent bid processes
  • Root Cause: Weak three-way matching (PO → receipt → invoice); manual warehouse receipt verification by military personnel with conflicts of interest; absence of independent goods receipt inspectors; foundation shell companies with Army-issued credibility certificates; no centralized invoice audit trail

Why This Matters

The Pitch: Brazilian Armed Forces lose R$ 15.7+ milhões in every major capital project due to fraudulent invoice rings operated by military-linked foundations. Three-way invoice matching (PO → delivery receipt → invoice) with photo/barcode verification eliminates phantom deliveries.

Affected Stakeholders

Army Almoxarife (Warehouse Officers), Foundation Invoice Processors, Goods Receipt Inspectors (conflicted military personnel), Contract Managers (IME, DNIT, other institutes)

Deep Analysis (Premium)

Financial Impact

Financial data and detailed analysis available with full access. Unlock to see exact figures, evidence sources, and actionable insights.

Unlock to reveal

Current Workarounds

Financial data and detailed analysis available with full access. Unlock to see exact figures, evidence sources, and actionable insights.

Unlock to reveal

Get Solutions for This Problem

Full report with actionable solutions

$99$39
  • Solutions for this specific pain
  • Solutions for all 15 industry pains
  • Where to find first clients
  • Pricing & launch costs
Get Solutions Report

Methodology & Sources

Data collected via OSINT from regulatory filings, industry audits, and verified case studies.

Evidence Sources:

Related Business Risks

Lançamentos Antecipados de Pagamento sem Desembolso Efetivo (Fraude de Liquidação)

R$ 400 milhões+ annually (confirmed in specific fiscal periods by TCU audit); conservative estimate across full audit period: R$ 2-3 bilhões in suspicious payment transactions

Cartel de Fornecedores ('Clube de Vendas') em Licitações de Alimentos e Suprimentos

R$ 154 milhões em 2020-2021 (6 months); extrapolated annual loss: R$ 250+ milhões

Superfaturamento em Compras no Exterior (Overpayment sem Benchmarking de Preço)

R$ 2-4 bilhões (logic estimate based on: R$ 23B total spend across 5 commissions over 4 years; ~10-15% of audited transactions showing pricing anomalies)

Uso Não-Autorizado de Cartão de Crédito Privado para Despesas Públicas (Não-Conformidade de Instrumento de Pagamento)

R$ 0 direct loss quantified; but exposure to: TCU audit exceptions (R$ 100k-500k per exception notice); potential Fiscal Responsibility Law penalties; audit costs (estimated 200-400 hours/year of TCU staff review)

Superfaturamento em Aquisição de Medicamentos (Viagra) - Falta de Verificação de Preço de Mercado

Estimated R$ 500k-2M overpayment on 35k units (logic estimate: if 5-10x markup on pharmaceutical, and unit cost R$ 15-30 retail vs. R$ 75-150 invoiced)

Sobrecustos em Modificações Contratuais e Licitações Direcionadas

LOGIC ESTIMATE: 5–15% cost overrun on annual defense procurement (estimated R$ 15–45 billion market = R$ 750 million to R$ 6.75 billion annually in preventable overruns)

Request Deep Analysis

🇧🇷 Be first to access this market's intelligence