Subjetividade na interpretação dos dispositivos das sentenças judiciais e seus efeitos na perícia contábil em cumprimento de sentença

Abstract

Forensic accounting is essential in the liquidation and enforcement of court judgments, ensuring the precise quantification of amounts and the fulfillment of rights recognized in court. However, omissions and a lack of clarity in judicial rulings often introduce subjectivity into forensic accountants’ interpretations, affecting the definition of technical criteria and methods in the production of expert evidence. This study used a mixed qualitative-quantitative approach to analyze how subjectivity resulting from gaps in judicial rulings impacts forensic accounting in sentence enforcement proceedings in the civil courts of Natal/RN between 2020 and 2022, evaluating its effects on expert report challenges, process duration, and costs. The research examined 204 cases, including a qualitative analysis of 16 subjective judicial rulings, and employed statistical methods such as Pearson correlation, logistic regression, and OLS. Qualitative findings suggest that technical omissions in judicial decisions create room for interpretation by the expert, leading to subjectivity and challenges to the expert report. From a quantitative perspective, the results reveal that technical omissions in 15.69% of cases significantly increase the probability of appeals to the third instance (odds ratio 2.7034, p < 0.05) and of motions for clarification (odds ratio 2.8805, p < 0.05), but counterintuitively reduce by 60.24% the chance of requests for clarification or challenges to the expert report (odds ratio 0.3976, p < 0.05). No direct relationship was found between omissions and process duration, except when moderated by third-instance appeals, which extended the time for evidence production by 68.20% (p < 0.05). The absence of direct cost data limited the analysis, but proxies such as new expert reports (5.88%) suggest indirect impacts. Grounded in legal and accounting communication theory and the Plain Language Movement, the study underscores the need for greater precision in judicial drafting to reduce interpretative discrepancies, mitigate challenges, and enhance efficiency and legal certainty in sentence enforcement.