PROOF OF FRAUD IN THE APPLICATION OF THE QUALIFIED CRAFT FINE

Abstract

This article uses the theme of omission of prescriptions to propose an examination of the hypothesis prescribed by Article 44, § 1, of Law 9.430/96, in order to provide elements that allow an objective and judicious analysis of the primary sanctioning rule provided therein, in order to provide elements for the interpreter to get rid of the frequent subjectivisms regarding the motivation of the subjective element of the type. To do so, it starts from a careful analysis of the logical-syntactic structure of the norm, going through an explanation as to the possible semantic contents of the terms fraud, evasion and collusion; to, in the end, make pragmatic criticisms of the way the language of evidence has been rejected in launches that impose the qualification of a fine.