obstacles, or even impediments, for obtaining required evidence
Dentro de uma das maiores instituições financeiras do Brasil, uma investigação interna revelou não apenas indícios de assédio sexual e moral sistemáticos, mas também a resistência deliberada de setores do próprio banco em colaborar com a apuração. O relatório da Corregedoria da Caixa Econômica Federal, construído ao longo de meses e com mais de cinquenta depoimentos, confirma o que as vítimas relataram — e documenta, com igual rigor, os obstáculos que tentaram silenciar essa verdade. É uma história que transcende um único acusado: ela fala sobre o que acontece quando o poder institucional é usado tanto para oprimir quanto para se proteger.
- Cinco celulares corporativos do ex-presidente Pedro Guimarães simplesmente desapareceram durante a investigação — e ele afirmou não saber nem os números dos aparelhos que usava.
- A equipe de investigadores esperou mais de um mês para receber imagens de segurança completas, que chegaram corrompidas, com arquivos sobrepostos e dados perdidos.
- Mais de cinquenta testemunhos corroboram um padrão de assédio sexual repetido e uma cultura de gestão marcada pelo medo, manipulação e violência psicológica.
- O Ministério do Trabalho entrou com ação exigindo R$ 30 milhões de Guimarães pessoalmente e R$ 300 milhões da Caixa por danos causados às trabalhadoras.
- A defesa de Guimarães contesta o relatório, alegando parcialidade e falta de imparcialidade no processo — enquanto a Caixa reafirma tolerância zero a desvios de conduta, sem comentar o mérito.
Em junho, funcionárias da Caixa Econômica Federal vieram a público relatar assédio sexual e abuso psicológico praticados pelo então presidente do banco, Pedro Guimarães. Meses depois, a Corregedoria da instituição concluiu sua investigação — e o que encontrou foi, ao mesmo tempo, uma confirmação das denúncias e um registro detalhado das tentativas de impedir que a verdade viesse à tona.
Uma equipe de dez investigadores conduziu mais de cinquenta entrevistas e reuniu cerca de quinhentas páginas de depoimentos e evidências. Mas o caminho foi marcado por resistências. Quando solicitaram imagens das câmeras de segurança — do estacionamento, do elevador privativo de Guimarães e dos corredores da sede —, o setor responsável alegou limitações técnicas e pediu mais prazo. As imagens chegaram incompletas. Após uma reunião para exigir o material integral e adequado para análise forense, o arquivo completo só foi entregue um mês depois — corrompido, com dados perdidos. No dia seguinte à entrega, o próprio Guimarães solicitou as mesmas gravações.
Cinco celulares corporativos usados pelo ex-presidente nunca foram localizados. Guimarães disse não saber os números dos aparelhos e não se lembrar de tê-los recebido formalmente. Os dispositivos simplesmente sumiram.
Apesar dos obstáculos, o relatório foi conclusivo. Os depoimentos apontaram para práticas de natureza sexual realizadas de forma repetida, com uso da posição de presidente como instrumento de poder. No campo do assédio moral, o documento descreveu uma cultura de gestão baseada no medo, na comunicação violenta, na manipulação e na intolerância — um ambiente que afetou profundamente as trabalhadoras envolvidas.
A Corregedoria recomendou que a Caixa busque ressarcimento de Guimarães e de outros responsáveis. O Ministério do Trabalho já havia ajuizado ação pedindo R$ 30 milhões do ex-presidente e R$ 300 milhões do banco. A defesa de Guimarães rejeitou as conclusões, alegando que a investigação foi conduzida com parcialidade e sem respeito aos princípios básicos do contraditório. A Caixa, por sua vez, afirmou não tolerar desvios de conduta e disse ter fortalecido seus mecanismos de governança — mas não comentou o mérito do caso, citando o sigilo do processo.
In June, a scandal broke at Caixa Econômica Federal, one of Brazil's largest state-owned banks. Women working there had reported sexual harassment and psychological abuse by the institution's then-president, Pedro Guimarães. By October, the bank's internal audit office had completed its investigation. What they found was not just evidence of misconduct—it was evidence of obstruction.
The Corregedoria, Caixa's internal watchdog, assembled a team of ten investigators to examine the allegations. They conducted more than fifty interviews, gathered roughly five hundred pages of testimony and evidence, and submitted their findings to the bank's leadership, the federal prosecutors, labor prosecutors, the federal comptroller's office, and the presidential ethics commission. But getting there was not straightforward. The team documented what it called "obstacles, or even impediments," placed in their path by various departments within the bank itself, as well as resistance from Guimarães.
When the investigators requested security footage from the bank's garage, the private elevator Guimarães used, and the corridors where he and other executives moved through the building, the department responsible for maintaining those recordings—Suseg—claimed technical limitations and asked for more time. Five days passed before anything arrived. Even then, the footage was incomplete. The Corregedoria had to hold a meeting to clarify that they needed every frame, uncut and unedited, suitable for forensic analysis. A full month after the initial request, on August 3rd, the complete video archive finally appeared. But it came with overlapping files that resulted in lost data. One day after those files were delivered, Guimarães himself requested the same recordings.
The investigators also sought Guimarães's work phones. Five corporate devices that he had used were simply absent. When pressed, Guimarães said he did not know the phone numbers of the corporate devices he had carried, and he could not recall ever signing for them. The phones were never located.
What the investigators did find, across all their interviews and evidence, corroborated the women's accounts. The report concluded there were "indications of irregular practices of a sexual nature," and that these practices "appear to have been carried out repeatedly, using the most varied forms of expression—physical, gestural, or verbal—and taking advantage, in particular, of the condition of president of the company." On the question of psychological harassment, the document was equally direct: the testimonies revealed "the establishment of a management based on a culture of fear, violent communication, insecurity, manipulation, intransigence, and tolerance of harassment."
The Corregedoria recommended that Caixa seek financial restitution from Guimarães and any other employees responsible for harm caused by their conduct. The Labor Ministry had already filed suit, demanding thirty million reais from Guimarães personally and three hundred million from the bank itself.
Guimarães's legal team rejected the investigation's findings. In a statement, his attorney, José Luis Oliveira Lima, said the Corregedoria had conducted its work with "evident partiality," lacking the "basic principles of fairness and impartiality." The defense claimed the investigators had formulated questions and requested documents designed to confirm conclusions they had already reached. "The conclusions reached in a procedure in which the most basic principles of fairness were disrespected contribute little to clarifying the investigation," the statement said.
Caixa itself issued a brief response, stating it "does not tolerate any deviation of conduct" from its leaders or employees, and that it had "strengthened the bank's governance to investigate complaints, protect whistleblowers and employees, and protect the Institution itself." The bank declined to comment further, citing the confidential nature of the investigation now in the hands of authorities.
Citações Notáveis
There are indications of irregular practices of a sexual nature, carried out repeatedly using physical, gestural, or verbal forms of expression, taking advantage of the condition of president of the company.— Caixa's internal audit report
The conclusions reached in a procedure in which the most basic principles of fairness were disrespected contribute little to clarifying the investigation.— Pedro Guimarães's legal defense
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why would the bank's own security department delay handing over footage that could help prove what happened?
That's the question the investigators were asking too. The stated reason was technical limitations, but a month-long delay to deliver unedited video from a major financial institution is hard to explain away. It suggests either incompetence or something else.
And the missing phones—five of them—that seems almost too convenient.
It does. Guimarães claimed he didn't remember the numbers or signing for them. But a sitting president of a major bank doesn't just misplace five corporate devices. Those phones would have contained messages, calls, location data. They were evidence.
The report says the investigation itself was conducted fairly, with independence. So how did obstruction happen?
Independence on paper and independence in practice are different things. The Corregedoria had to ask other departments for help. Those departments reported to the same institution, the same leadership structure. When you're investigating your own employer, there are pressures—subtle and not so subtle.
What does it mean that Guimarães asked for the same footage one day after it was finally delivered?
It suggests he wanted to see what the investigators had seen. Maybe to understand what evidence existed against him, or to know what was missing. The timing is notable enough that the investigators thought it worth mentioning.
The defense says the investigation was designed to confirm a predetermined conclusion. Is that plausible?
The defense has to say something. But fifty interviews and five hundred pages of corroborating testimony from multiple witnesses is harder to dismiss as a setup. The obstruction itself—the delays, the missing phones—that's separate from whether the underlying allegations are true.
What happens now?
The case is in the hands of prosecutors and the courts. The bank and Guimarães will fight over the findings. But the obstruction itself—that's a separate problem. It suggests the institution was protecting itself, not seeking truth.