Brazilian Justice Dias Toffoli has recused himself from overseeing the arrest warrant for banker Daniel Vorcaro, but has left open the possibility of ruling on the main investigation into alleged fraud at Banco Master. The move comes amid increasing scrutiny of Toffoli’s connections to Vorcaro.
Toffoli will decide at a later date whether to recuse himself from the broader inquiry into the alleged fraud at Vorcaro’s bank, according to reports. This decision maintains the stance he has taken since relinquishing the lead role in the investigation exactly one month ago.
The justice previously declared a conflict of interest in a case concerning a parliamentary inquiry into Banco Master, and in the process that authorized the third phase of Operation Compliance Zero – which led to Vorcaro’s arrest. The case highlights the growing pressure on Brazil’s judicial system regarding potential conflicts of interest.
Toffoli did not mention his recusal from the inquiry, case number 5026, when informing André Mendonça, who has taken over the case, and Gilmar Mendes, president of the Second Panel of the Supreme Federal Court, that he would not participate in the hearing to review the decision to detain Vorcaro and other individuals under investigation.
In a dispatch sent to Mendonça and Mendes, Toffoli affirmed that his recusal applies “from this investigative stage.” This reaffirms the validity of actions and orders issued during the 77 days he led the process and avoids preemptively ruling out future participation in judging the inquiry.
“Given that there is a correlation between the matters subject to that case and those in the proceedings of Petition No. 15.556/DF, I declare my suspicion in accordance with Art. 145, § 1, of the Civil Procedure Code, for reasons of intimate conviction, as of this investigative stage,” the justice wrote in the official communication.
Sources close to Toffoli say the decision to recuse himself was made in an attempt to protect the reputation of the Supreme Federal Court amid an intensifying crisis. The move underscores the sensitivity of the case and the potential for further scrutiny of the court’s actions.
