▸ Article
No processo, a autora cobrou R$ 358.456,79 por danos materiais e R$ 20 mil por danos morais, alegando ter sido vítima de manipulação emocional durante um relacionamento. O recurso foi analisado e rejeitado em decisão proferida em 20 de março deste ano pelo TJES.
O caso começou a ser analisado na Vara Única de Bom Jesus do Norte, onde a ação foi julgada improcedente em 19 de março de 2025 pela juíza Maria Izabel Pereira de Azevedo Altoé.
Na ação, a mulher afirmou que manteve um relacionamento amoroso com um dos réus entre dezembro de 2018 e fevereiro de 2021. Segundo ela, durante esse período, foi convencida a realizar uma série de transferências financeiras ao pai do então companheiro, sob a promessa de que os valores seriam aplicados em investimentos.
De acordo com a autora, os repasses — que somariam mais de R$ 358 mil — teriam sido feitos em meio a um contexto de confiança afetiva. Ela sustentou que foi induzida em erro por meio de promessas reiteradas de retorno financeiro e de devolução dos valores, o que nunca teria ocorrido.
A mulher também relatou que, mesmo após o fim do relacionamento, tentou reaver o dinheiro de forma amigável, inclusive por meio de ligações e mensagens. Em algumas conversas anexadas ao processo, segundo ela, o pai do ex-companheiro reconheceria a dívida e se comprometeria a pagar, mas sem cumprir.
Além do prejuízo financeiro, a autora alegou ter sofrido abalo emocional, constrangimento e violação à dignidade, o que, na avaliação dela, justificaria a indenização por danos morais.
Provas não convenceram a Justiça
No julgamento do recurso, o relator, desembargador Jorge Henrique Valle dos Santos, seguiu a mesma linha. Ele concluiu que não ficou demonstrado o "dolo" — ou seja, a intenção de enganar para obter vantagem financeira.
Segundo o acórdão, as movimentações financeiras e as mensagens indicam que as tratativas podem estar relacionadas a investimentos ou parcerias comerciais. Os réus sustentaram, por exemplo, que parte dos valores foi aplicada em uma empresa do grupo, com retorno financeiro à autora.
A autora ainda tentou reforçar o caso com uma ata notarial contendo mensagens, apresentada apenas na fase de recurso. O TJES, no entanto, considerou que o documento foi juntado fora do momento adequado, já que tratava de fatos antigos e a própria parte havia aberto mão de produzir provas antes. Por fim, os desembargadores entenderam que o conteúdo não comprova manipulação emocional nem fraude.
Hover overTap highlighted text for details
▸ Source Quality 4/5
Source classification (primary/secondary/tertiary), named vs anonymous, expert credentials, variety
Summary
Good use of named court documents and officials, but relies heavily on the plaintiff's claims without direct quotes from defendants.
Findings 4
"pela juíza Maria Izabel Pereira de Azevedo Altoé"
Named judge from first instance decision.
Named source"tor, desembargador Jorge Henrique Valle dos Santos, seguiu a"
Named appellate judge who authored the ruling.
Named source"Segundo o acórdão"
Direct reference to the court's official ruling document.
Primary source"Segundo ela"
Attribution to the plaintiff's claims.
Secondary source▸ Perspective Balance 4/5
Acknowledgment of multiple viewpoints, counterarguments, and balanced presentation
Summary
Clearly presents both the plaintiff's claims and the court's reasoning for rejection, including the defendants' position.
Findings 3
"Os réus sustentaram, por exemplo, que parte dos valores foi aplicada em uma empresa do grupo"
Presents the defendants' counter-argument.
Balance indicator"ma linha. Ele concluiu que não ficou demonstrado o "dolo""
Presents the court's perspective contradicting the plaintiff's claim.
Balance indicator"O TJES, no entanto, considerou que o documento foi juntado fora do momento adequado"
Uses 'no entanto' to contrast the plaintiff's action with the court's assessment.
Balance indicator▸ Contextual Depth 4/5
Background information, statistics, comprehensiveness of coverage
Summary
Provides detailed timeline, specific monetary claims, legal terminology, and procedural history.
Findings 4
"entre dezembro de 2018 e fevereiro de 2021"
Provides specific timeline of the relationship.
Background"R$ 358.456,79 por danos materiais e R$ 20 mil por danos morais"
Provides exact financial claims.
Statistic"na Vara Única de Bom Jesus do Norte, onde a ação foi julgada improcedente em 19 de março de 2025"
Provides procedural history and lower court details.
Context indicator"o "dolo" — ou seja, a intenção de enganar para obte"
Explains legal terminology for readers.
Context indicator▸ Language Neutrality 5/5
Absence of loaded, sensationalist, or politically biased language
Summary
Uses factual, legalistic language throughout without sensationalism or loaded terms.
Findings 3
"negou provimento ao recurso"
Standard legal/judicial terminology.
Neutral language"alegando ter sido vítima de manipulação emocional"
Reports claim neutrally with 'alegando'.
Neutral language"concluiu que não ficou demonstrado"
Factual reporting of court's conclusion.
Neutral language▸ Transparency 5/5
Author attribution, dates, methodology disclosure, quote attribution
Summary
Full attribution of author, date, court documents, judges, and clear quote attribution.
Findings 2
"Segundo o acórdão"
Clear attribution to court document.
Quote attribution"Segundo ela"
Clear attribution to plaintiff's claims.
Quote attribution▸ Logical Coherence 5/5
Internal consistency of claims, absence of contradictions and unsupported causation
Summary
No logical inconsistencies detected; narrative follows chronological and procedural order clearly.
Logic Issues
Contradiction · high
Conflicting values for 'the': 2 vs 19
"Heuristic: Values conflict between P1 and P2"
Contradiction · high
Conflicting values for 'the': 2 vs $358,456.79
"Heuristic: Values conflict between P1 and P3"
Contradiction · high
Conflicting values for 'the': 2 vs 2018
"Heuristic: Values conflict between P1 and P4"
Contradiction · high
Conflicting values for 'the': 19 vs $358,456.79
"Heuristic: Values conflict between P2 and P3"
Contradiction · high
Conflicting values for 'the': 19 vs 2018
"Heuristic: Values conflict between P2 and P4"
Contradiction · high
Conflicting values for 'the': $358,456.79 vs 2018
"Heuristic: Values conflict between P3 and P4"
Core Claims
"The TJES denied an appeal for compensation in a 'sentimental estelionato' case."
Court ruling referenced as 'acórdão' and decision by named judge. Primary
"The plaintiff alleged emotional manipulation and financial transfers during a relationship from 2018-2021."
Attributed to the plaintiff ('segundo ela') with specific details. Named secondary
"The court found no proof of intentional deception ('dolo') and considered financial transactions possibly related to investments."
From the court's ruling as summarized in the article. Primary
Logic Model Inspector
Inconsistencies FoundExtracted Propositions (7)
-
P1
"The 2nd Civil Chamber of TJES denied the appeal on March 20 of this year."
Factual In contradiction -
P2
"The case was first judged improvident in Bom Jesus do Norte on March 19, 2025."
Factual In contradiction -
P3
"The plaintiff claimed R$358,456.79 in material damages and R$20,000 in moral damages."
Factual In contradiction -
P4
"The relationship occurred between December 2018 and February 2021."
Factual In contradiction -
P5
"Emotional manipulation during relationship causes Financial transfers to partner's father"
Causal -
P6
"Promise of investment returns causes Plaintiff made transfers"
Causal -
P7
"Lack of proof of intentional deception causes Court denied compensation claim"
Causal
Claim Relationships Graph
Detected Contradictions (6)
View Formal Logic Representation
=== Propositions === P1 [factual]: The 2nd Civil Chamber of TJES denied the appeal on March 20 of this year. P2 [factual]: The case was first judged improvident in Bom Jesus do Norte on March 19, 2025. P3 [factual]: The plaintiff claimed R$358,456.79 in material damages and R$20,000 in moral damages. P4 [factual]: The relationship occurred between December 2018 and February 2021. P5 [causal]: Emotional manipulation during relationship causes Financial transfers to partner's father P6 [causal]: Promise of investment returns causes Plaintiff made transfers P7 [causal]: Lack of proof of intentional deception causes Court denied compensation claim === Constraints === P1 contradicts P2 Note: Conflicting values for 'the': 2 vs 19 P1 contradicts P3 Note: Conflicting values for 'the': 2 vs $358,456.79 P1 contradicts P4 Note: Conflicting values for 'the': 2 vs 2018 P2 contradicts P3 Note: Conflicting values for 'the': 19 vs $358,456.79 P2 contradicts P4 Note: Conflicting values for 'the': 19 vs 2018 P3 contradicts P4 Note: Conflicting values for 'the': $358,456.79 vs 2018 === Causal Graph === emotional manipulation during relationship -> financial transfers to partners father promise of investment returns -> plaintiff made transfers lack of proof of intentional deception -> court denied compensation claim === Detected Contradictions === UNSAT: P1 AND P2 Proof: Heuristic: Values conflict between P1 and P2 UNSAT: P1 AND P3 Proof: Heuristic: Values conflict between P1 and P3 UNSAT: P1 AND P4 Proof: Heuristic: Values conflict between P1 and P4 UNSAT: P2 AND P3 Proof: Heuristic: Values conflict between P2 and P3 UNSAT: P2 AND P4 Proof: Heuristic: Values conflict between P2 and P4 UNSAT: P3 AND P4 Proof: Heuristic: Values conflict between P3 and P4
Want to score another article? Paste a new URL →