He'd lost a million and a half reais, but it was fine.
On a São Paulo avenue last August, a moment of speed, a red light ignored, and a collision left at least one stranger injured and two influencers fleeing into the night. Now, months later, Brazilian content creator Samuel Sant'Anna da Costa — known as Gato Preto — stands before a criminal court charged with two counts of attempted homicide, the law asking whether recklessness and flight together constitute an acceptance of death as a possible outcome. It is a question societies have long struggled to answer: where does carelessness end and intent begin, and what do we owe one another when we choose to assume a risk that is not ours alone to bear.
- A Porsche at high speed, a red light, a family car struck, and two influencers vanishing from the wreckage before police arrived — the facts of the night are not in dispute, only their legal meaning.
- Associates appeared within minutes to remove belongings from the abandoned vehicle, and Gato Preto later posted — then deleted — a story lamenting the financial loss of the car, a detail prosecutors are unlikely to forget.
- A judge accepted charges of attempted homicide with eventual intent, rejecting the defense's argument that this was mere negligence, and ordered the Porsche seized to compensate the victim.
- His legal team contests the framing vigorously, insisting that assuming a risk is not the same as intending harm, and that justice must be separated from the emotional weight of public outrage.
- The case arrives against a backdrop of prior legal troubles — gambling promotion investigations, money laundering inquiries, and an arrest for unpaid child support — that complicate any portrait of an isolated lapse in judgment.
Samuel Sant'Anna da Costa, the Brazilian influencer known as Gato Preto, is now a criminal defendant. Last August 20th, he drove a Porsche 911 Carrera at dangerous speed through São Paulo, ran a red light on Brigadeiro Faria Lima avenue, and struck a Hyundai HB20 before colliding with a utility pole. At least one person in the other car — a father who had his son with him — was injured. Gato Preto and his passenger, fellow influencer Bia Miranda, were also hurt. Then both of them left the scene.
Police found the Porsche abandoned. The HB20's driver described a man moving at reckless speed, visibly intoxicated, making threats. Shortly after, people connected to Bia Miranda arrived in another vehicle, collected items from the Porsche, and drove both influencers away. Hours before the crash, the two had been documenting a party on social media. Afterward, Gato Preto briefly posted about the accident, noting he'd lost a million and a half reais on the car — a story he later deleted.
On April 22nd, a judge accepted the prosecution's case. Gato Preto now faces two counts of attempted homicide with eventual intent — Brazil's legal framework for knowingly accepting the risk of causing death — along with charges of making threats and three traffic code violations. His driver's license has been suspended, and the court ordered the Porsche seized to fund reparations for the victim.
His defense team expressed surprise, arguing the incident constitutes culpable negligence rather than any form of intentional homicide. The judge saw it differently. The case does not arrive in isolation: two weeks before the crash, Gato Preto and Bia Miranda were already under investigation in Rio de Janeiro for allegedly promoting illegal gambling, with inquiries touching on money laundering and organized crime. In December, he was briefly detained for failing to pay child support. The Porsche is gone. What the courts make of the man behind the wheel remains to be seen.
Samuel Sant'Anna da Costa, known to his millions of followers as Gato Preto, is now a defendant in criminal court. On August 20th of last year, he was driving a Porsche 911 Carrera at high speed through São Paulo when he ran a red light on Brigadeiro Faria Lima avenue, struck another car—a Hyundai HB20—and hit a utility pole. At least one person in the other vehicle was injured. Gato Preto and his passenger, 21-year-old influencer Bia Miranda, were also hurt in the collision. Then they left.
Police arrived to find the Porsche abandoned and both occupants gone. The driver of the HB20, who had his son in the car, told officers what he saw: a vehicle moving at dangerous speed, a man who appeared visibly intoxicated and aggressive, making threats. Within moments, people connected to Bia Miranda arrived in a Hyundai Creta, removed items from inside the Porsche, and took both influencers away from the scene.
Hours before the crash, Gato Preto and Bia had posted from a party—music, alcohol, the ordinary documentation of their evening. After the accident, he shared a story commenting on the damage: he'd lost a million and a half reais, but it was fine. He deleted it later.
On April 22nd, a judge accepted the prosecution's charges. Gato Preto now faces two counts of attempted homicide with eventual intent—the legal term for knowingly assuming the risk of causing death—plus charges of making threats and three violations of Brazil's traffic code. His driver's license has been suspended. The court has ordered the seizure of the Porsche to cover reparations to the victim.
His legal team expressed surprise at the decision. The defense argues this was culpable negligence, not intentional homicide, even in its eventual form. They say they stand with the injured parties and seek justice removed from emotional reaction. But the judge disagreed with that framing.
This is not Gato Preto's first brush with legal trouble. Two weeks before the accident, he and Bia Miranda were under investigation by Rio de Janeiro police for promoting gambling on their social media accounts; investigators were looking into possible money laundering and organized crime. In December, he was briefly detained for failing to pay child support—fifty-seven thousand reais owed to the mother of his son.
What happens next depends on how the courts weigh the evidence: whether a moment of recklessness and flight from the scene rises to the level of attempted murder, or whether it remains a serious but different kind of crime. The Porsche is already gone, seized for the victim's sake. The question now is what becomes of the man who was driving it.
Notable Quotes
The defense understands this is culpable negligence, not intentional homicide, even eventual intent.— Gato Preto's legal team (attorneys Jonatha Carvalho Matos, André Nino, and Daniele Vieira)
I hit my Porsche, lost a million and a half reais. It's fine.— Gato Preto, in a since-deleted social media story posted hours after the crash
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did the court decide this was attempted homicide and not just reckless driving?
The key is something called "eventual intent." The law says if you do something dangerous and you know people might die, but you do it anyway, that's homicide—even if you didn't want them to die. Running a red light at high speed isn't an accident; it's a choice that assumes the risk.
But his lawyers say it was negligence, not intent.
Right. There's a real legal difference. Negligence is when you're careless but didn't think about the consequences. Intent—even eventual intent—means you knew the danger and accepted it. The judge looked at the facts: high speed, red light, a busy avenue. That's not carelessness. That's knowingly playing with people's lives.
What about the fleeing the scene part?
That matters too, though it's a separate crime. When you leave, you're not just avoiding responsibility—you're preventing help from reaching the injured. It shows consciousness of guilt, which courts take seriously.
His defense mentioned emotional reaction. What did they mean?
They're asking the court to step back from the sensational parts—he's famous, he was partying, he posted about it afterward—and focus on the law itself. They want the case judged on legal principle, not public outrage. It's a reasonable argument, but it doesn't change what happened.
What does seizing the Porsche actually accomplish?
It's not punishment in the traditional sense. It's a way to guarantee the victim gets compensated. The car becomes an asset of the court, sold if necessary to pay for medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering. It's practical justice.
Is this likely to go to trial?
Almost certainly. The defense will fight the homicide charges. They might succeed in getting it reduced to negligence. But the facts—the speed, the red light, the injuries, the flight—those are hard to argue away.