TUI rules acquittal on criminal charges does not affect residence permit revocation

[Photo: Renato Marques]

The Court of Final Appeal (TUI) has finally ruled on a case involving a person who acquired residency status through qualifying investments.

The case involved the resident opposing the government after it revoked his residency permit on suspicion of a series of crimes from which he was later acquitted.

According to the TUI’s ruling, the acquittal on the criminal charges was due to insufficient evidence, a reason invoked by the higher court to state that “insufficient evidence does not amount to the absence of strong indications that he committed the unlawful acts; these are two different legal concepts.”

In this sense, the collegiate court remarked that the dismissal of criminal charges does not affect the revocation of a residence permit that was based on the fact that the person was suspected of committing a series of serious crimes and, in this sense, was considered a dangerous individual.

According to the TUI, the individual argued that, in the first-instance criminal decision, he was acquitted of the crimes due to insufficient evidence, meaning that it was not proven that he participated in or committed the criminal acts. He claimed that such a decision was sufficient to clear the legal presumption that there were serious grounds to believe that he committed the criminal acts.

On these claims, the appeal court noted that although he was acquitted at trial, the acquittal was based on a lack of evidence and in accordance with the principle of in dubio pro reo, and that it had not been proven that he did not commit the acts attributed to him.

The judges of the TUI added that the revocation of a residence permit does not depend on a final conviction and may also be based on the existence of serious grounds to believe that the individual has committed acts constituting crimes or intends to commit acts of that nature; in other words, it is sufficient that there be “strong evidence” that the individual committed the aforementioned crimes.

The same higher court noted that the Public Prosecutor’s Office (MP) may file criminal charges only when there is sufficient evidence of a crime. Such evidence is considered sufficient whenever it gives rise to a reasonable possibility that the defendant may, as a result, be sentenced to a penalty or security measure at trial.

“The fact that the MP filed criminal charges against the individual reveals that the respondent correctly recognized the existence of strong evidence (serious grounds to believe) that he committed the respective crimes, which is consistent with the provisions of Article 23(3) of Law No. 16/2021.

In fact, the acquittal handed down by the Court of First Instance did not deny the person’s participation in the acts of defrauding the banks and obtaining the loans; on the contrary, it found it proven that he had participated in those acts, but there was insufficient evidence to show that he knew that the documents used to obtain the bank loans were forged,” the TUI concluded.