Jurisdictional Jurisdiction in Crimes of Misappropriation of SUS Funds

parameters for the Criminal Protection of Public Health Resources

Abstract

This article analyzes, from a legal-constitutional perspective, the jurisdiction over crimes involving the misappropriation of public funds linked to the Unified Health System (SUS), examining the criteria for determining whether such cases fall under Federal or State Court jurisdiction. The discussion is based on the relevant constitutional provisions, as well as the application of Summaries 208 and 209 of the Superior Court of Justice, which guide the determination of jurisdiction according to the nature and destination of public funds. It is observed that in Fund-to-Fund transfers, where resources are incorporated into the assets of subnational entities, State Court jurisdiction prevails. Conversely, in voluntary transfers or agreements, where oversight and accountability to federal bodies are maintained, Federal Court jurisdiction applies. The study demonstrates that the determination of competent jurisdiction is not limited to the origin of the resources but depends on a concrete analysis of the legal interest harmed and the degree of federal involvement in the implementation of public health policies. It concludes that the correct delineation of criminal jurisdiction is an essential instrument for the effectiveness of the federative pact, the protection of public funds, and the preservation of the principle of the natural judge.

Keywords: Federal and State Jurisdiction; Jurisdictional Competence; Natural Judge; Unified Health System (SUS).