Corinthians board reveals votes in Andrés Sanchez expulsion process

The acting president of the Council, who presided over the session, said he did not have the documents in hand and that he announced the result solely on the basis of the vote count reported by the second secretary, Denis Piovezan. He also stated that one of Andrés’ lawyers, Alexandre Imbriani, followed part of the ballot count at the table.

The statement adds a procedural detail to the dispute surrounding the session’s outcome, indicating that the proclamation was not based on direct possession of the records by the presiding officer, but rather on information conveyed during the counting process. According to the acting president, the official result was communicated after the count presented by Piovezan, suggesting that the declaration reflected the tally as reported at the table rather than an independent review of the documents by the chair.

The mention of lawyer Alexandre Imbriani is also relevant, as the acting president noted that he was present for part of the vote count. This implies that the counting process was observed by at least one legal representative linked to Andrés, which may be important in discussions about transparency, oversight, or the legitimacy of the result.

The account does not clarify what specific documents were missing, what the final vote total was, or whether there was any formal challenge to the procedure at the time. However, the response points to a contested or at least scrutinized process in which responsibility for the result rested on the secretary’s count and the chair’s announcement, while a lawyer for one side was reportedly present during part of the verification.

Overall, the statement frames the session as one in which the presiding officer relied on another official’s tally to proclaim the outcome, rather than on a personal examination of the underlying records. It also suggests that the count occurred in the presence of legal counsel connected to one of the parties involved, which may be cited in later arguments about how the result was reached and whether the procedure followed internal rules.

If this account becomes part of a larger dispute, the key points are the acting president’s lack of direct access to the documents, the reliance on the second secretary’s count, and the observation by Andrés’ lawyer during part of the vote tabulation. These details may influence how the session is interpreted by participants, observers, or any body reviewing the process afterward.