The Finance Ministry establishes a new sanctions regime for commercial promotions and popular savings.
The Secretariat for Prizes and Betting of the Ministry of Finance (SPA/MF) published on Monday (June 30) Ordinance No. 1.818/2026, which establishes a structured sanctioning regime for two segments regulated for decades by federal legislation: commercial promotions with free distribution of prizes and the advance collection of popular savings. The rule also regulates, for the first time in its own regulation, the procedure for entering into commitment agreements in these procedures.
The scope of the ordinance is broad. The new regime applies to promotions carried out by broadcasting concessionaires and licensees, operations promoted by civil society organizations, and all forms of advance collection of popular savings, in addition to conventional commercial promotions. The legal basis is Law No. 5.768/1971 and Decree No. 70.951/1972, instruments that already governed these activities but lacked specific sanctioning regulations within the scope of the SPA/MF (Brazilian Ministry of Finance).
Infractions and penalties
Among the actions classified as administrative infractions, the ordinance lists carrying out operations without prior authorization from the Ministry of Finance, non-compliance with the prize distribution plan, deviation from the purpose of the operation, and disregard for the conditions of the authorization granted.
The range of penalties includes warnings, fines, revocation of authorization, prohibition of new operations for a specified period, and subjection to a special inspection regime. The amounts of the fines can be substantial: for commercial promotions and related operations, the penalty can reach 100% of the sum of the goods promised as prizes; in the case of advance collection of popular savings, the same 100% ceiling applies to the amounts received or to be received as expenses or administration fees.
The determination of penalties takes into account the severity and duration of the infraction, the offender's first offense, the demonstrated good faith, the degree of harm to the national economy or consumers, the advantage gained, and the economic capacity of the sanctioned party. Recidivism, characterized by the commission of a new infraction of the same nature within three years following a final administrative conviction, may result in the application of double the fine.
Offenses of the same kind committed continuously may be investigated in a single proceeding, with the base penalty increased by up to 50%. The punitive action prescribes in five years, counted from the commission of the act or, in cases of continuing offenses, from the cessation of the conduct. There is also provision for intercurrent prescription when the process is paralyzed for more than three years.
Procedural rite and instances
The initiation, instruction, and analysis of the administrative sanctioning process will be the responsibility of the Sub-Secretariat for Monitoring and Inspection of the SPA/MF. The first-instance decision will be the responsibility of the Sub-Secretariat for Sanctioning Action.
The notified party will have 30 days to present a defense, and may attach documents and indicate the evidence they intend to produce. The rule allows for comments on new evidence presented by the Administration and accepts evidence produced in other proceedings, provided that the right to a fair hearing is ensured.
An appeal against the first instance decision may be lodged with the Secretary of Prizes and Betting within ten days, without the requirement of a security deposit. The appeal does not have an automatic suspensive effect, although it is possible to request its attribution based on Law No. 9.784/1999. The process will proceed through up to two administrative instances.
Terms of commitment: acceptance without confession
The ordinance details the contours of the commitment agreement, an instrument that may be proposed by the interested party or by the Sub-Secretariat for Sanctioning Action before a first-instance decision is made. By adhering, the signatory commits to ceasing the investigated practice, correcting irregularities, compensating for any damages, and paying a mandatory monetary contribution to the National Treasury's Single Account.
Adherence does not equate to confession of the facts nor to recognition of illegality. The instrument constitutes an extrajudicial enforceable title and may lead to the dismissal of the case after full compliance with the agreed obligations. Two points deserve attention: the agreement does not generate benefits in the criminal sphere and does not exempt the SPA/MF from the obligation to report any illegalities to the Public Prosecutor's Office and other competent bodies.
There is also an explicit exclusion: the instrument is not available for infractions related to the duties of preventing money laundering and the financing of terrorism foreseen in Law No. 9.613/1998. In these cases, the penalties follow the AML/CFT legislation, with recourse to the National Financial System Appeals Council (CRSFN), also without automatic suspensive effect.
The publication of the ordinance formalizes a framework that was lacking for the SPA/MF (Secretariat of Planning, Budget and Management of the Ministry of Finance) to fully exercise its supervisory authority over a market that moves billions in promotions and pre-sales to consumers. What remains open is how the secretariat will calibrate, in practice, the dosage of fines and the use of the commitment agreement, whose first concrete cases should reveal the enforcement profile that the department intends to consolidate.
