By Indianara Goz
Almost a year after Brazil's Central Bank placed Banco Master into extrajudicial liquidation, no Brazilian authority has given up their post. That contrast with neighboring Paraguay, where officials left office after the Banco Ueno crisis, raises a question that is troubling Brasília: why, in the Master case, does no one fall?
Banco Master crisis: two countries, two outcomes
Banco Master was liquidated by the Central Bank almost a year ago, and the decision was not followed by a single resignation. In Paraguay, by contrast, the intervention in Banco Ueno led authorities to leave their posts.
The gap between the two cases is stark, and Brazilian readers need to understand why, according to the original report by Visão da Direita.
Who is Daniel Vorcaro?
The central figure in the story is Daniel Vorcaro, the banker linked to the Master case. He financed projects on opposite sides of the political spectrum: from the film Dark Horse, about Jair Bolsonaro (Brazil's president from 2019 to 2022), to the Lula Institute and a documentary by Oliver Stone.
His influence did not stop at politics. It also reached the press and digital influencers, which makes the case much bigger than the collapse of a bank.
The Supreme Court under scrutiny
This is the most explosive point. Vorcaro is suspected of having kept financial ties with justices of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), Brazil's highest court, of having hired the law firms of public officials, and of having paid for events for magistrates.
Among the names cited, Justice Alexandre de Moraes is suspected of engaging in "administrative advocacy" (advocacia administrativa) on the banker's behalf. Under Brazilian law, the term refers to using a public position to advance a private party's interests. These are suspicions, and the court itself sits in the middle of them.
An STF session that was supposed to take action has been paralyzed by a request for review (pedido de vista) from Justice Flávio Dino. That procedure lets a justice take more time to study a case, which halts the judgment. Meanwhile, the investigation remains with the court's president, Edson Fachin, and Moraes has not yet been formally investigated.
In other words, those who judge are also under suspicion, in a setting where delay becomes the answer.
Why it matters
For those following the case closely, the fact that everyone remains in office is not a sign of institutional normality. It is a sign that the system protects its own. When a banker's money runs through campaigns, films, institutes and courts, the public has the right to know who was touched by it and why no one has been removed so far.
What happens next depends on how quickly the Supreme Court moves. If the request for review keeps blocking the session and the investigation does not reach the suspicions about Moraes, the perception of a protective shield is likely to grow. Pressure for explanations should then reach the court's full bench, Congress and the streets.
VDD Analysis
The Master case shows why trust in institutions erodes. When the top of the Judiciary appears at the center of suspicion and not a single seat is vacated, ordinary citizens conclude that there is an untouchable upper floor. We stand for the same rules for everyone, including justices of the nation's highest court. Without transparency and accountability, no rule of law can endure.
