It is fully permissible to use the National System for Asset Investigation and Recovery (Sniper), under the National Council of Justice, to conduct searches and apply enforcement measures without requiring or disclosing banking transaction data of the debtor. It is the responsibility of judges and court officials to adopt the necessary measures to ensure the confidentiality of debtor information protected by banking secrecy and the General Data Protection Law (LGPD), including, when necessary, ordering full or partial confidentiality of the proceedings or specific documents and filings.
With this understanding, the 4th Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) ruled by majority that judges and courts may consult the Sniper system to locate assets in civil enforcement proceedings without a specific court order to breach the debtor’s banking secrecy.
According to the panel, while a breach of bank secrecy is not required, the decision to consult Sniper must be properly reasoned, and any results involving protected data should be treated with greater caution.
“If there is a duly reasoned court order for consultation and enforcement, specifying the systems triggered and indicating any validity requirements specific to each tool, there can be no presumption of illegality or violation of the debtor’s rights,” emphasized Minister Marco Buzzi, who authored the prevailing opinion.
In a case already at the sentence enforcement stage, the São Paulo Court of Justice had denied the use of the tool, arguing that consultation of Sniper for asset enforcement (blocking or restricting the debtor’s assets or funds) would require a breach of banking secrecy—an action which, according to the TJ-SP, could only be adopted exceptionally in cases of concrete suspicion of unlawful conduct.
Before the STJ, the creditor argued that using Sniper is legitimate for locating assets and holdings in the debtor’s name, as it aligns with the principles of procedural speed, reasonable case duration, and effectiveness of enforcement.
Reasonableness and Proportionality
Buzzi explained that Sniper was created to streamline and centralize orders for asset searches and seizures, avoiding the fragmented use of different systems such as the Judiciary’s Asset Search System (Sisbajud) and the Judicial Vehicle Restriction System (Renajud). According to him, the tool merely enhances the efficiency of civil enforcement, in line with STJ jurisprudence and the need to ensure procedural effectiveness.
However, the minister noted that it is necessary to assess, in each specific case, whether there are alternative enforcement means that do not expose the debtor. Therefore, the use of the tool in civil enforcement must be authorized with proper reasoning, respecting the principles of reasonableness and proportionality.
Data Protection
Even in cases where the Sniper system is used for enforcement against the debtor, Buzzi emphasized that as long as the disclosure of protected data is properly restricted, STJ jurisprudence does not prohibit access to the system.
In such instances, the minister stated that judges and officials must take necessary steps to protect debtor data covered by banking secrecy or the LGPD, including the possibility of ordering full or partial confidentiality of the proceedings or specific documents.
“There is, therefore, no general requirement for a court order to breach the debtor’s banking secrecy in order to use the Sniper system for satisfying a civil debt,” he maintained. “Naturally, however, a judicial decision is still required to approve (or not) the use of the tool based on its appropriateness to the specific case.”
(Information provided by the STJ press office)