Freire e Melo Advogados Associados 31th of August 2015 Dear Mr. Ravin Krishnan The Complainants start by instating that Agropalma´s reply met all of their expectations in every way, as it was vague, untruthful, and also unsubstantiated. The RSPO member in casu provided no real responses to the information and evidences presented by the Complainants. On the other side, the Complainants ratify all the information presented on previous statements, and will supply RSPO with more data and evidence on the matters involving Agropalma and their way of doing business. Ab initio, only a few parts of Agropalma´s reply is deserved attention. With the intention to be objective and not waste anyone’s time, the Complainants promise to be as brief as possible: A. The Complainants are not trying to make use of the RSPO´s good will to solve the matters they have against Agropalma. Despite the sentencing informed on the reply, their case is in course, and has not reached its final chapter just yet. At this point the Complainants will not disclose new information or comment on the progress of the civil case, in order not do jeopardy their strategy. If it is of RSPO interest, a full copy of the case can be provided for evaluation. Any lawyer with experience in Brazilian courts will know that there is a lot more to it than Agropalma wants it to be.

Página

1

B. The facts noticed to RSPO are matters of the Brazilian people´s best interest, and the Complainants do not have to explain themselves to Agropalma, or RSPO. There is no need to explain why they accuse

Av. Raja Gabáglia nª 4943, conj. de Salas 203, bairro São Bento, Belo Horizonte/MG Rua 02 de Novembro nº 252, bairro Centro, Boa Esperança/MG [email protected]

Freire e Melo Advogados Associados Agropalma of fraudulently produce land tittles, since it all true, and it is not secrecy. Although, it is expected from RSPO to take action and follow the investigations and procedures that are in full progress under state and federal authorities in Brazil; C. To be more clear, the matters involving the Complainants and Agropalma are only a small quota of all the land tittle frauds involving the company business model; D. Attached to the email, which based the reply from Agropalma, were a few documents that deserved a proper answer. It was at the very least expected from Agropalma an explanation on the information provided by the company, on the 22000ha (twenty two thousand hectares) of land tittles registered in incompetent notary office. Nothing meaningful was presented to clear the matter, and not only RSPO, but the Complainants were left with no real answer; E. The “over a century old” documents held by the Complainants are evidence of their rights for the land they claim. The chain of ownership is dated from 1894, and it has been passing from generation to generation of their family. Agropalma disregards the concept and importance of land tenure, and the concept of a valid chain of ownership, after all they seem to have an infinite inspiration to find new ways to fraud land tittles; F. The Complainants never in their existence made any proposal to Agropalma,

Página

2

or tried settlement out or in court. They have also never authorized anyone to negotiate with the company on their behalf. Every information referring to a tentative of settlement attempt is nothing but a blatant

Av. Raja Gabáglia nª 4943, conj. de Salas 203, bairro São Bento, Belo Horizonte/MG Rua 02 de Novembro nº 252, bairro Centro, Boa Esperança/MG [email protected]

Freire e Melo Advogados Associados deceit. The Complainants plea is to their land to be reassigned back to the family, and for Agropalma to pay a fair compensation, majored and decided in court. Taking money instead of the land is not an option; The Complainants will now refer to specific topics of Agropalma´s reply: 1. It is not only shocking, but it is also an absurd to verify such crimes happening at this point in time, when businesses are expected to follow a new path, and make the sustainability not only a concept, but a business model, a goal. The land acquisition process is in fact complex in Brazil, but the laws are clear enough to forbid a private entity to make up their own notary office, and forge documents, with the purpose to commit frauds. The matters involving Agropalma´s land tittles are many, there are more than one iter criminis, making it impossible to be verified without an independent, faithful and impartial audit. On the reference to the authorization granted to Agropalma by the Brazilian Senate, the company´s statement lacks truth, and failed to explain the entire legal process. Although the Senate did expedite the authorization,

the

acquisition

process,

to

which

Agropalma

makes

reference, is also object of ongoing investigations. The land tittle in this case is for a land majoring 22.000 hectares, and the process of acquisition is full of questionable and illegal acts. There are land tittles granted to Agropalma that were supposed to receive

Página

3

authorization from the Legislative Assembly of the state of Pará (ALEPA), but it has been verified that the acquisition process did not meet such legal requirement. This is precisely what happened to the land tittles in the

Av. Raja Gabáglia nª 4943, conj. de Salas 203, bairro São Bento, Belo Horizonte/MG Rua 02 de Novembro nº 252, bairro Centro, Boa Esperança/MG [email protected]

Freire e Melo Advogados Associados processes

numbers

2001/338513,

2001/338535,

2001/338541

e

2001/338524. If RSPO is diligent to investigate what is being informed, it will rest clear that those four processes informed here, are for the exact portion of land, related to the tittle granted by the Brazilian Senate. To be more clear and specific, the four land acquisition processes informed above are in superposition to the land tittle, to which the Brazilian Senate granted authorization. 2. The police investigations in Acará were initiated by court order (copy attached to the email as file 1). It is a fact that the State Court of Pará decided on the 24th of august that Mr. Freitas and Silva are to be excluded from the proceedings. On the other hand, it is not true that there´s no evidence, and the Court´s decision is still subject of appeals and other legal procedures. The Complainants will make no further comments on the Court´s decision at this moment, waiting for the next developments, which will be informed to RSPO. Never the less, during the hearing, the lawyer defending Mr. Freitas case confirmed, sponte propria, the existence of the frauds denounced by the Complainants. A link to the video of the court hearing will be provided as evidence to RSPO in the next days. 3. This third topic is one that deserves special attention from RSPO.

Página

4

At this point, the Complainants expected Agropalma to explain what was said on the meeting held by the prosecutor´s office, referring to the information given by the company on the 22.000 hectares of land tittle registered in incompetent notary office.

Av. Raja Gabáglia nª 4943, conj. de Salas 203, bairro São Bento, Belo Horizonte/MG Rua 02 de Novembro nº 252, bairro Centro, Boa Esperança/MG [email protected]

Freire e Melo Advogados Associados As to RSPO Principles & Criteria, it is an obligation of the certified member to have the land tittles and documents/evidence of their ownership available for public consultation. It is strange to notice on the item 05 (five) of the minute of the meeting that Agropalma refused to make available for the prosecutor´s office the land tittles incident to their entire claimed properties. Relating to the minute of the meeting held by the prosecutor´s office, the questions below are to be answered.  Relating

to

22000

hectares

informed

to

be

registered

in

“incompetent” notary office, to which land tittles that specifically applies?  Where is this “incompetent” notary service located? What is the address of such notary office?  Who was the individual authorized by Agropalma to sign the documents registered in the, professed, incompetent notary office?  Under the article 176, §1º, 3) a) of the 6.015/73 statute (Law that regulates public registries in Brazil), can Agropalma inform the CCIR number of each of the land tittle?  Has Agropalma certified the georeferenced properties under the Statute 10.267/01? There are legal matters involving false accusations. Civil and criminal lawsuits are

Página

5

some of the instruments Agropalma has in hand to prevent the Complainants to go forward on their crusade, but up to this day, no action has been taken. On the

Av. Raja Gabáglia nª 4943, conj. de Salas 203, bairro São Bento, Belo Horizonte/MG Rua 02 de Novembro nº 252, bairro Centro, Boa Esperança/MG [email protected]

Freire e Melo Advogados Associados other hand, the Complainants are seeking legal response and actions from authorities, state, federal and private entities, like RSPO. The Complainants are horrified with the fact that a company with such massive and unmistakable problems regarding its land tittles received certification of the significance of RSPO. It is incomprehensive for them how no frauds were detected in the course of the audit (if any was really in place). Attached to the email are copies of “documents” that Agropalma has used to fraud land tittles, and falsely meet environmental laws. The notary service where the document is “registered” is named Oliveira Santos, the exact one that never existed. Also attached to the email are other evidences of the frauds denunciated by the Complainants. The alleged “Certidão de Aberbação de Reserva Legal” (portuguese for Legal Reserve Certificate), came from the very same notary office, the one and only inexistent Oliveira Santos (all Oliveira Santos documents are listed as file 2). It is fair to explain at this point, that the “documents” from the wannabe notary office Oliveira Santos, were used by Agropalma to falsely justify the chain of ownership of land tittles, which were restored by the notary office of Acará. 4. There are no contradictions on the Complainants statements, niente! First of all, it must remain clear that the ITERPA´s information was not produced at the will of the Complainants, but following order from the State Court of Pará (information listed as file 3), and it was signed by the ITERPA´s Public Attorney to whom the case was distributed.

Página

6

Agropalma has informed, “ITERPA itself has been questioned regarding this “official” information, which contradicts previous information given by them in the same proceedings…” First: the information is official, and it was

Av. Raja Gabáglia nª 4943, conj. de Salas 203, bairro São Bento, Belo Horizonte/MG Rua 02 de Novembro nº 252, bairro Centro, Boa Esperança/MG [email protected]

Freire e Melo Advogados Associados issued by ITERPA; Second: there are no contradictions to previous information, as there is not a single information on the proceedings related to the Complainants and Agropalma, before the one now discussed. 5. There are also no contradiction in the statement. If all the land tittle held by Agropalma are analyzed by an independent and impartial bureau, it will certainly come to the same conclusion the Complainants are affirming. 6. There are no worries from the Complainants regarding good, nor bad publicity. There is also no extortions in place. If Agropalma feels this way, there are legal procedures to be taken against the Complainants. Agropalma clearly misunderstands the extent of their corrupt business model. The case involving the Complainants and the company will be decided in the courts all law, but there are no legal or moral reasons for the Complainants not to inform authorities and RSPO of all the frauds detected in the company ´s land tittles. LAND TITTLE REGISTERED IN TAILANDIA/PA - CANCELLED Attached to the email sent to RSPO on the 17th of august of 2015, regarding the situation of the land tittle number 4.672 registered in the notary office of Moju, a few questions are deserved answers:  Knowing the land tittle was cancelled in January/2010, what documents were provided to IBD in the certification processing?  Since it has been cancelled for over five years, why is the land tittle

Página

7

in question being presented to SEMA/PA (state environmental authority) for environmental licensing on current days?

Av. Raja Gabáglia nª 4943, conj. de Salas 203, bairro São Bento, Belo Horizonte/MG Rua 02 de Novembro nº 252, bairro Centro, Boa Esperança/MG [email protected]

Freire e Melo Advogados Associados Added to the questions above, it is important to know the role played by IBD in this case. Did it knowledge that this land tittle was cancelled, and yet it granted certification? What were the audit procedures that in reality took place on the course of the certification process? The relevance of this information for the Complainants is to inform the federal authorities of the IBD accountability over these matters. RSPO and the Complainants deserve those answers. It is not the time, or place for the childish arguments presented in the Agropalma´s reply. LAND TITTLES REGISTERED IN TAILANDIA/PA The Complainants are not pleased with the reply from Agropalma, and take the opportunity to inform RSPO of other frauds to land tittles, in benefit of the Company. It is now time for Agropalma to show their commitment to RSPO´s cause, and give strait answers to the questions above, and also to the ones below. Before asking the questions, it is proper to explain some legal issues, needed for understanding the matters, and establish a few considerations. According to the 6.015/73 statute, it is possible and legal to register a land tittle in another notary office, when there´s a change in jurisdiction, such as when political emancipation of a city. That is the precise case of Acará and Tailândia, which the later is many years older than the last, and the last had its emancipation on the 10th of may, 1988. There was not a notary office in Tailândia until the 09th of February 1995, but

Página

8

even when it declares owing the properties for more than 30 (thirty) years, Agropalma only applied to change the supposed previous registries, from the notary service of Acará to Tailandia in February of 2010. The 15 (FIFTY) years gap does not make the land tittles illegal or fraudulent per se, but the

Av. Raja Gabáglia nª 4943, conj. de Salas 203, bairro São Bento, Belo Horizonte/MG Rua 02 de Novembro nº 252, bairro Centro, Boa Esperança/MG [email protected]

Freire e Melo Advogados Associados registration itself in the notary office of Tailandia goes beyond illegal, it is an outrage to one’s intelligence and sense of rectitude. Let us see: The land tittles number 0929, 0930, 0931, 0932, 0933, 0934, 0935, 0936, 0937, 0938, 0940, 0941 and 0946, all registered in the book 2–E, on the pages 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173 e 176, respectively, are notably fraudulent (copies of the land tittles informed here, are attached to the email as file number 4). Under the articles 176, §1º, II, 3), a), and 229, both of the 6.015/73 statute, the documents presented by Agropalma when applied to the change of jurisdiction are improper and useless for the desired purpose, for the following reasons:  Under the article 176, §1º, II, 3) a) of the 6.015/73 statute, in order to identify the estate object of the registration, there should have been presented the CCIR, which is an enrollment of the rural estate or property in the INCRA (Federal Institute competent to supervise and monitor affair related to rural estates, among other issues), but Agropalma has failed to present the certificate;  Under the article 229 of the 6.015/73 statute, when applying for a registration of a estate in cases of chances of jurisdiction, it is mandatory to present to the competent notary office, the land tittle from the previous notary office, recently consigned, which did not happen in the registration of all the land tittles informed above; It is noted that the land tittle from the previous notary office, as per the

Página

9

information from the land tittles registered in the notary office of Tailandia, the documentation from the previous notary office is dated 08 (eight) from years before the act;

Av. Raja Gabáglia nª 4943, conj. de Salas 203, bairro São Bento, Belo Horizonte/MG Rua 02 de Novembro nº 252, bairro Centro, Boa Esperança/MG [email protected]

Freire e Melo Advogados Associados  Also relevant to be evaluated by RSPO, is the information given by the notary office of Acara, stating that the books, in which the land tittles were supposed to be registered does not exist!  More shocking than the previous information, it is acknowledging that the administrative procedures informed as conducted in ITERPA have nothing to do with what Agropalma pretends. In fact, only one of the procedures informed as a demonstration of the land tenure held by Agropalma was conducted in ITERPA, but has nothing to do with the land in casu, and all other were conducted in another state government department. See the information below:  Land Tittle number 0932: according to the documents presented by Agropalma to the notary official, the land was demarcated by ITERPA

through

the

administrative

procedure

number

2001/197484, and was homologated on the 16th of September of 2002;  Land Tittle number 0934: according to the documents presented by Agropalma to the notary official, the land was demarcated by ITERPA through the administrative procedure number 2001/197183, and was homologated on the 6th of September of 2002;  Land Tittle number 0935: according to the documents presented by Agropalma to the notary official, the land was demarcated by

Página

10

ITERPA

through

the

administrative

procedure

number

2001/197407, and was homologated on the 6th of September of 2002;

Av. Raja Gabáglia nª 4943, conj. de Salas 203, bairro São Bento, Belo Horizonte/MG Rua 02 de Novembro nº 252, bairro Centro, Boa Esperança/MG [email protected]

Freire e Melo Advogados Associados  Land Tittle number 0936: according to the documents presented by Agropalma to the notary official, the land was demarcated by ITERPA through the administrative procedure number 2001/197183, and was homologated on the 6th of September of 2002;  Land Tittle number 0937: according to the documents presented by Agropalma to the notary official, the land was demarcated by ITERPA

through

the

administrative

procedure

number

2001/197528, and was homologated on the 6th of September 2002;  Land Tittle number 0938: according to the documents presented by Agropalma to the notary official, the land was demarcated by ITERPA through the administrative procedure number 2001/197201, and was homologated on the 6th of September of 2002;  Land Tittle number 0939: according to the documents presented by Agropalma to the notary official, the land was demarcated by ITERPA through the administrative procedure number 2001/197518, and was homologated on the 6th of September of 2002;  Land Tittle number 0940: according to the documents presented by Agropalma to the notary official, the land was demarcated by ITERPA

through

the

administrative

procedure

number

2001/197507, and was homologated on the 6th of September of 2002;

Página

11

The Complainants have formally argued ITERPA on the existence of the procedures above mentioned. On the next days ITERPA will also be argued on all the other details related to the land tittles in question. As there are no secrecy

Av. Raja Gabáglia nª 4943, conj. de Salas 203, bairro São Bento, Belo Horizonte/MG Rua 02 de Novembro nº 252, bairro Centro, Boa Esperança/MG [email protected]

Freire e Melo Advogados Associados on the information held by the Complainants, RSPO will receive in firsthand the outcome of the consultation. On the meantime, there are no excuses for Agropalma not to answer the following questions:  Why were old dated land tittles from the notary office of Acará presented to the notary office of Tailandia, instead of recently issued ones?  If the book where the land tittles is inexistent, why were not restored, since it is a perfect and legal procedure?  Does Agropalma care to supply copies of the administrative procedures informed in the Land Tittles? The numbers are: 2001/197183, 2001/197407, 2001/197507, 2001/197201, 2001/197484, 2001/197528 and 2001/191518.  Does Agropalma care to supply copies of the state official journal, in which were published the homologation of the demarcation of the land, respective to each land tittle? To be clear, it is mandatory that all demarcations conducted by ITERPA, when homologated, to be published in the state official journal.  What are the numbers of the CCIR for each of the land tittles? CONCLUSION

and there are no evidences held in secrecy.

Página

12

All the information provided by the Complainants are available for consultation,

Av. Raja Gabáglia nª 4943, conj. de Salas 203, bairro São Bento, Belo Horizonte/MG Rua 02 de Novembro nº 252, bairro Centro, Boa Esperança/MG [email protected]

Freire e Melo Advogados Associados It is clearly comprehensive the reasons why Agropalma does not want any investigation, or any similar procedure, on their land tittles. From a distance, RSPO is not in position to verify the enormous effort that the company is doing to hide its serious flaws, and there are no evidence that Agropalma is taking any action to solve the appointed issues in a legal manner. On the contrary, it all points to the direction that it is doing all it can to hide the dust under the carpet. The Complainants reinstate that RSPO is not expected to take place on the matters involving their litigation against Agropalma. It will be resolved in courts of law, but the Complainants expect it from RSPO to act, investigating the facts denunciated here, and the ones that will be object of future reports. As it was stated previously, in order to deeply acknowledge the reality of the frauds committed by Agropalma concerning all the land tittles it claims to be of its properties, it is best if RSPO appoints an impartial lawyer or board, not related to Agropalma or IBD. Believing solely on the company´s reply is a severe mistake, as Agropalma´s seniors are contumacious liars, who committed and acknowledge the crimes and frauds here informed, and take all possible actions to hide and deny it. The Complainants feel that RSPO is in obligation to explain how the Agropalma´s certification process was conducted in such way, that properties are certified, while its land tittles are object of frauds, and even cancelled. Many aspects that are relevant when audits are in place were simply ignored.

Página

13

Best Regards,

_______________________________ BRUNO MELO FIORENZANO REIS OAB-PA 14.666

Av. Raja Gabáglia nª 4943, conj. de Salas 203, bairro São Bento, Belo Horizonte/MG Rua 02 de Novembro nº 252, bairro Centro, Boa Esperança/MG [email protected]